| Title | Drugs - Royal Commission of Inquiry - Report - Book A - Parts I to V |
| Source | Both Chambers |
| Date | 18-03-1980 |
| Parliament No. | 31 |
| Tabled in House of Reps | 18-03-1980 |
| Tabled in Senate | 18-03-1980 |
| Parliamentary Paper Year | 1980 |
| Parliamentary Paper No. | 25 |
| System Id | publications/tabledpapers/HPP032016007263 |
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL C O M M ISSIO N OF INQ UIRY INTO DRUGS
Report
Book A: Parts I to V
21 December 1979
Presented by Command and ordered to be printed 18 March 1980
Parliamentary Paper No. 25/1980
- : ; \ί.... <1
â
â m m â â . · â · â m & ? .y ν$$$·
* \ η
v·/ -t λ.
Siifi
The Government of The Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of the States of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania
Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs Commissioner: The Hon. Mr Justice E. S. Williams
Report
Book A: Parts Iâ V
Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra 1980
(c) Commonwealth of Australia 1980
ISBN for this volume: 0 642 04676 X
ISBN for set of v o l u m e s : 0 642 04778 2
P u b l isher's note
In order to make this vo l u m e a v a ilable as rapidly and econ o m i c a l l y
as possible the text has be e n reproduced from originals prepared as c o mputer print-out.
The publishers recognise that this me t h o d has its limitations and regret any lapses in typographical quality.
Printed by C. J. T hompson, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS
imissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice E.S. Williams Box 659 G. P. O.
it tary: G. H. Giltnour Brisbane, Qld. 4001
Telephone (07) 221 7672
21 December 1979
Your Excellency,
In accordance with Letters Patent dated 13 October 1977, I have the honour to present to you the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It is identical with the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of
Inquiry into Drugs to the Governments of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania.
For reasons given in the Report, the Commission' s task is not yet complete. I therefore retain the Letters Patent until the completion.
Yours sincerely,
E. S. Williams) Commissioner
His Excellency Sir Zelman Cowen, A. K. , G. C. M. G. , K. St. J. , Q. C. , Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief, Government House,
CANBERRA. A. C. T. 2600.
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS
nmissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice E.S. Williams Box 659 G. P. O.
etary: G. H. Gilmour Brisbane, Qld. 4001
Telephone (07) 221 7672
21 December 1979
Your Excellency,
In accordance with Letters Patent dated 27 October 1977, I have the honour to present to you the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It is identical with the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry
into Drugs to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, and Tasmania.
For reasons given in the Report, the Commission' s task is not yet complete. I therefore retain the Letters Patent until the completion.
Yours sincerely,
l. S. Williams) Commissioner
His Excellency Sir James Ramsay, K. C. M. G. , C. B. E. , D. S. C. , Governor of Queensland, Government House,
BRISBANE. Q. 4000.
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS
"imissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice E.S. Williams
setaiy: G.H. Gilmour
Box 659 G.P.O. Brisbane, Qld. 4001 Telephone (07) 221 7672
21 December 1979
Your Excellency,
In accordance with Letters Patent dated 15 November 1977, I have the honour to present to you the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It is identical with the
Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, and Tasmania.
For reasons given in the Report, the Commission's task is not yet complete. I therefore retain the Letters Patent until the completion.
Yours sincerely,
9
His Excellency the Honourable Sir Henry Winneke, K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., O.B.E., K.St.J., Q.C., Governor of Victoria, Government House, MELBOURNE. Vic. 3000.
:
AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS
Timissioner: The Hon. Mr. Justice E.S. Williams
seiaiy: G.H. Gilmour Brisbane, Qld. 4001
Box 659 G.P.O.
Telephone (07) 221 7672
21 December 1979
Your Excellency
In accordance with Letters Patent dated 2 November 1977, I have the honour to present to you the Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. It is identical with the
Report of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, Victoria, Queensland, and Tasmania.
For reasons given in the Report, the Commission's task is not yet complete. I therefore retain the Letters Patent until the completion.
His Excellency Air Chief Marshal Sir Wallace Kyle, G.C.B., K.C.V.O., C.B.E., D.S.O., D.S.C., K.St.J., Governor of Western Australia,
Government House, PERTH. W .A. 6000.
Yours sincerely,
(E.S. Williams) Commissioner
Report
BOOK A
Part I Introduction
II Drugs of Abuse and their Uses
III Patterns of Drug Use
IV The Factual Terms of Reference
V Legislation
BOOK B
Part VI Organisations wi t h a Direct Enforcement Role
VII Organisations wi t h an Indirect Enforcement Role
VIII Coastal Surveillance
IX International Initiatives
BOOK C
Part X Treatment
XI Drug Education
XII Drug Use Controls
XIII Improving Some Existing Controls
BOOK D
Part XIV A National Strategy on Drug Abuse
List of Recommendations
y
iii
1v
Contents
PART I Introduction
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
PART II
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chaptér
Chapter
H
2
3
4
History and Conduct of the Commission
The Terms of Reference of the Commission
Discussion of the Terms of Reference
Matters Incidental to the Inquiry and Preparation of the Report
Drugs of Abuse and their Effects
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Alcohol
Ethyl Alcohol
Methyl Alcohol
Nicotine
Analgesics
Salicylates
Phenacetin and Paracetamol
Analgesic Combinations and Powders
Central Nervous System Stimulants
Cocaine
Amphetamines
Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
The Xanthines: Caffeine, Theobromine
Appetite Suppressant Drugs
Central Nervous System Depressants
The Barbiturates
Non-Barbiturate Hypnotics and Sedatives
Tranquillisers
Narcotics - Opiates and Synthetic Opiates
Narcotic Analgesics
Specific Narcotics
Cannabis
V
Page
A1
A}
A7
A9
>
>4
A29
AIS
A57
A6]
Page
Chapter 8 Hall u c i n o g e n s
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)
Me s c a l i n e
M u shrooms and Psilocybin
P h e n c yclidine
A67
Chapter 9 V o latile Solvents A71
P ART III Patterns of Drug Use A73
Chapter 1 Legal Use of Drugs
Tobacco (Nicotine)
Alcohol
Over the Counter Drugs
P r e s c ription Drugs
Other Substances Abused
An n e x I I I . 1
A75
Chapter 2 Illegal Use of Drugs
The Drugs Illegally Used
The Groups in the Community Most
Involved
Stages of Illegal Drug Use
Annex III.2
A99
Chapter 3 Why People Use Drugs A115
E x p erimentation
Peer Group Pressure
Mood A l tering Influences
Family Influences
Cultural Influence
Availability
Advertising
Religion
vi
Chapter 4 Profiles of Illegal Drug Users
A Number of Case Studies (A to Q)
Chapter 5 The Connection between Illegal Drug Use
and other Criminal Activities
Chapter 6 Multiple Drug Use
Defining M u ltiple Drug Use
The Australian Situation
Overseas Trends
General
PART IV The Factual Terms of Reference
A139
A157
A163
A173
Chapter 1 Production of Illegal Drugs A175
Introduction
The Opiates
Cocaine
Hallucinogens
Cannabis
Amphetamines
Methaqualone
General
Chapter 2 Methods of Importation of Illegal Drugs A197
Financing of Illegal Drug Importations
Corruption of Public Officials
Personal Importation
Importation by Mail
Importation in Cargo
General
Chapter 3 Extent of Importation of Illegal Drugs A217
Detection and Seizure of Illegally Imported Drugs
Recording of Drug Seizures
Drug Seizures Recorded by the Narcotics Bureau
Drug Importations State by State
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Indirect Indicators of the Extent of Illegal Importation
P ossible Extent of Illegal Importation
E x p o r t a t i o n of Illegal Drugs
Extent of Illegal Exportation
Met h o d s of Exportation
General
T r a f ficking in Illegal Drugs
Drugs Trafficked
'Cutting' and Packaging
Prices
D i s t r ibution Arrangements
M ethods and Places of Trafficking
Trafficking as a Business
Extent of Trafficking
Term of Reference 'C ' The Extent of (i) Illegal Use of Drugs
(ii) Illegal Diversion of Drugs (iii) M i s u s e of Drugs so far as is
Relevant to the Use of Drugs
Extent of Illegal Use of Drugs
Extent of Illegal Diversion of Drugs
Extent of the Misuse of Drugs so far as
is Relevant to the Illegal Use of Drugs
The Organised Basis of Drug-related Crime
What is Meant by 'Organised Basis'?
Investigation of the 'Organised Basis' of Crime
A Royal Commission Initiative
The Importance of Sydney in R elation to
Illegal Drugs
Criminal Activities Related to Drugs
Obtaining Convictions
Patterns of Association Between Criminal Elements and Groups
Does a Single Individual or Group
Control Illegal Drugs in Australia?
Page
A237
A245
A287
A 3 2 1
viii
Page
Involvement of Ethnic Groups
Associations Between Illegal Drug-related Activities and Other Illegal Activities
Financial Repercussions of Drug-related
Crime
Conclusions
PART V Legislation
Chapter 1 International Conventions
Chapter 2 Legislative Powers and Jurisdiction
Introduction
Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
Commonwealth-State Powers
Chapter 3 Commonwealth Legislation (Offences and Penalties)
The Customs Act
The Narcotic Drugs Act 1967
The Psychotropic Substances Act 1976
Acts Dealing w i t h Drug Trafficking Incidentally
Chapter 4 State and Territory Legislation
(Offences and Penalties)
Special Provisions for Drugs of Addiction
Classification of Drugs
Drugs Covered by the Criminal Pro visions
Trafficking
Aiding, Abetting, etc., and Company Offences
Forged Prescriptions and Similar Matters
Controls on Prescribing and Treatment
Chapter 5 Interception of Communications
Chapter 6 Searches and Seizures
Introduction
A355
A357
A3 61
A369
A377
A421
A427
ix
Page
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
P A R T VI
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Searches P u rsuant to J u d i c i a l l y Issued
War r a n t s
Searches Wit h o u t a S pecific War r a n t
Inspections
7 Arrest, Bail and Con f i s c a t i o n
Powers of Arrest
Bail
For f e i t u r e and C o n f i scation
8 C o m pulsory Treatment
L e g i s l a t i o n in Tasmania
Other J urisdictions
9 Health Leg i s l a t i o n
Commonwealth
States and Territory L e g i s l a t i o n
10 Motor Tra f f i c and Industrial L e g i s l a t i o n
Organisations w i t h a Direct E n f o r c e m e n t Role * 1 2
Department of Business and Con s u m e r Affairs
1 Bureau of Customs
Drug-related Responsibilities
General Customs R e s ponsibilities
O r g a n isation
2 'The P r e ventive S e r v i c e 1
Organisation and Role
Personnel M a n agement
The Inspection Concept
Measures to Detect C o r ruption
Preventive Procedures
Recent Operational Changes
Special Units and Activities
Relations w i t h the Narcotics Bu r e a u
Staff Levels and Deployment
Operational Effectiveness and E f f iciency
A439
A449
A451
A4 6 3
B1
B3
B19
x
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
The N a r cotics Bureau
H istory and Organisation
CASOS and CIRB
Objectives and Role
Resources
M ethods of Operation
The Narcotics Bureau : Criticisms and Responses
'Public Servants and Not Policemen'
'Too N a r r o w a Legislative Base and Too
S m a l l '
'Failure of Co-operation and La c k of Feedback Information'
'Narrow Career Structure'
'Poor Leadership and Central Office Control, w i t h Insufficient Regional A u t o n o m y '
'Unwarranted Claims for C r e d i t '
'Poor Training and Inexperience'
Seizures and Statistics
Management Review Report
Annex V I .1
Conclusions and Recommendations
Bureau of Customs and 'The Preventive Service'
Narcotics Bureau
Recommendations
Police Forces
A u s tralian Federal Police
Conclusions and Recommendations
State Police Forces
Strength and Structure of Police Forces
State and Territory Drug L a w Enforcement
Police Methods of Operation
Other M atters Relevant to Police Activities
Police Corruption
Co-operation
B51
B69
Page
B141
B173
B183
xi
Po l i c e Criticisms of Leg i s l a t i o n and Its I m plementation
Conclusions and Recommendations
Page
Health Departments
C hapter 8 Commonwealth Department of He a l t h B241
Controls Over the Legal Importation and E x p o r t a t i o n of Drugs
Reg u l a t i o n of M a n u facture of Narcotic Drugs
R e g ulation of Dispensing and Sale of Drugs
The Drugs of Dependence M o n itoring System
Conclusions
Chapter 9 State Health Authorities B249
Conclusions and Recommendations
P ART VII Organisations w i t h an Indirect Enforcement Role B261
Chapter 1 Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs B263
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 2 Department of Foreign Affairs B273
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 3 Department of Transport B281
Conclusions
Chapter 4 Department of Defence B287
Conclusions
Chapter 5 Scientific Laboratories B295
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 6 Fisheries Protection Organisations B313
Commonwealth Role
State and Territory Fisheries Legislation
State and Territory Marine Surveillance Resources
CSIRO
Fishermen as Coast Watchers
xii
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
PART VIII
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
The 200 Nautical Mi l e Australian Fishing
Zone
Conclusions and Recommendations
7 Quarantine, Flora and Fauna Protection
Organisations
Quarantine Protection
Fauna and Flora Protection
Conclusions and Recommendations
8 Australian Taxation Office
9 Department of the Treasury and the Reserve
Bank of Australia
10 Postal and Telecommunications Authorities
Coastal Surveillance 1 2 3
1 The Need for Coastal Surveillance
2 Unauthorised Intrusions
Importations of Illicit Drugs by Light Aircraft
Importations of Illicit Drugs by Boat
Importations of Illicit Drugs by 1 Sea D r o p '
Frequency and Location of Intrusions
3 Resources Available for Surveillance
Coastal Air Sea Operations Support Group (CASOS)
Customs Patrol Vehicles
Department of Defence
Royal Australian Air Force
Royal Australian Navy
Australian Army
Department of Transport
Merchant Shipping
The Fishing Industry
Aircraft Pilots
Meteorological Radar
B327
B339
B343
B347
B353
B355
B361
B375
Page
xiii
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
PART IX
Chapter
Chapter
Chapter
State Organisations
Volunteer Coastal Patrols
4 Suggested Acquisitions for Surveillance
Aircraft
Patrol Boats
Coastguard
Radar Installations
Remote Electronic Sensors
Customs Launches
'C o a s t w a t c h ' Organisation
Other Acquisitions
5 Other Suggestions Relevant to Surveillance
6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Importations by Light Aircraft
Importations by Small Boats
'Sea Drops'
Extent of Importation
Effectiveness of Surveillance
Reasons for Shortcomings
Recent Upgrading of Resources
Recommendations
International Initiatives 1 2 3
1 Activities of International Organisations
United Nations Organisations
Other International Organisations
2 Efforts in 'Production' and ' T ransit'
Countries
'Production' Countries
'Transit' Countries
3 Australian Efforts
Contributions to UNFDAC
Bilateral Assistance
Other Activities
B417
Page
B429
B433
B445
B447
B453
B457
xiv
Page
Suggestions for Change
Chapter 4 Effectiveness of International Efforts B463
Crop Substitution
Suppression of Trade
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations B469
Conclusions
Recommendations
PART X Treatment Cl
Chapter 1 Institutions Offering Treatment and Their C3
Funding
Facilities in the States and Territories
Annex X. 1
Annex X. 2
Chapter 2 Approaches to Treatment C19
An Overview
Residential Programs, Isolation, etc.
Withdrawal
Opiate Maintenance in Australia, and Some
General Assessments
The ' British System'
Counselling and Confrontation
The Role of Private Medical Practitioners
Alternative Forms of Therapy
Chapter 3 Evaluation of Success C43
Criteria
Rates of Success
Measurement of Success
Chapter 4 Present Role of the Criminal Justice System C47
Some General Observations
The New South Wales Diversionary Program
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations C57
Conclusions
Recommendations
xv
PART XI Drug E d u cation
Page
C73
Chapter 1 Objectives
Aus t r a l i a n Philosophy
Other Views
Overseas Experiences
Broad Guidelines and Concepts
C74
Chapter 2 A u s tralian Programs
C o m m o nwealth Program
State and Territory Programs
N on-Government Organisations
' L e g a l ' Drug Use Education
C85
Chapter 3 Target Groups
General Public Groups
Occupation Groups
Other Groups
C115
Chapter 4 Role of the M e d i a and Advertising
Role of the Media
A d v e rtising
C125
Chapter 5 Evaluation of Success C135
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Recommendations
C141
PART XII Drug Use Controls C147
Chapter 1 General Considerations
The Background to Controls
Existing Control Standards
Liberty and Drug Controls
C149
Chapter 2 Alcohol C157
Federal Controls
State Controls
xvi
Chapter 3 Nicotine
Commonwealth Controls
State Controls
Chapter 4 Analgesics
Commonwealth Controls
State Controls
Advertising
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 5 Heroin
The Debate Concerning Relaxation of
Controls
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 6 Methaqualone
The Use and Abuse of Methaqualone
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 7 Pentazocine
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 8 Methadone
International Controls
Commonwealth Controls
State Controls
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter 9 Cannabis
Cannabis and Health
Cannabis and Society
Should Legislation Be Changed?
Policy Options
Conclusions and Recommendations
PART XIII Improving Some Existing Controls
C165
Page
C169
C177
C201
C207
C211
C215
C271
Chapter 1 Drug Detector Dogs C273
Extent of Use
Selection and Training
Effectiveness
xvii
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
D o g Training in Australia
Conclusions and Recommendations
U l t rasound Techniques
U l t rasound and its Properties
Me d i c a l U l t r asound in Australia
The Equipment for Ultrasonic E x a m i nations for Drugs
The Effectiveness of U l t r asound in Drug Detection
P e r f ormance of an Ultrasonic Examination to Detect Drugs
The Safety of Ultrasound
Conclusions and Recommendations
Forensic Laboratories
A u s tralian Attitudes
Conclusions and Recommendations
Forged Prescriptions
F r equency of Prescription Forgery
Me t h o d s Employed by Forgers
Security of Prescription Pads
Other M ethods of Preventing P r e s c ription Forgery
A Recent Initiative : Special P r e s c ription Pads for Schedule 8 Drugs
Conclusions and Recommendations
Financial Controls
Financial Aspects of the Illegal Drug Trade
Controls in the United States
Aus t r a l i a n Controls
Conclusions and Recommendations
Drugs in the Post
Recommendations
Page
C299
C309
C339
C365
C379
xviii
Chapter 7 Interception of Communications
Arguments for and against Interception
Controls on Interception Powers
Availability of Interception Devices
Chapter 8 Task Forces
Overseas Experience
The Joint Task Force
Imp1emen ta tion
No Short-term Expectations
General Application
C385
Page
C395
PART X I V A N ational Strategy on Drug Abuse D1
Chapter 1 The Nature and Size of the Problem of D3
Drug Abuse
Chapter 2 Outlining the Strategy D17
Chapter 3 A U niform Drug Trafficking Act D29
Chapter 4 A National System of Criminal Drug D35
Intelligence
Chapter 5 Drugs of Dependence Acts --- Commonwealth, D49
State and Territory Legislation on Drug
Abuse
Chapter 6 Drug Information Centres --- Statistical D59
Shortcomings and a Means of Overcoming Them
Chapter 7 Community Drug Liaison Committees D81
Chapter 8 The Future D85
List of Commission's Recommendations D89
xix
XX
Opium poppies: flowers and seed capsules
1. Drug detector dogs (see Part VI): U.S. Customs Australian sheepdog âT y \ lop demonstration dog at the training centre fo r drug detector dogs at Front Royal, Virginia, demonstrating a positive aggressive response to narcotic odour in a package on a conveyor belt. 2. Drug detector dogs (see Part VI): U.S. Customs detector dog at Honolulu responding
positively to a mailbag during screening o f mail. 3. Drug detector dogs (see Part VI): U.S. Customs detector dogs and handler screening bus passengers' baggage at Blaine on the U.S. I Canadian border. The dog responds positively to a white suitcase. 4. U.S. Customs drug detector dog screening baggage fo r the presence o f drugs at honoÂ
lulu.
(All photographs by Chief Preventive Officer I. A. Foster o f the Australian Bureau o f Customs.)
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): packages o f cannabis hidden in a false-bottom ed suitcase received as unaccompanied baggage at Adelaide (.Narcotics Bureau, Department o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Confidential Exhibit 96)
M ethods o f illegal production (see Part IV ): aerial and ground photographs o f a cannabis plantation at M t Toole-Be-W ong, Victoria. This platitation was well concealed and could be detected only fro m the air (Victoria Police photograph; Open E xhibit 176)
M ethods o f illegal production {see Part IV ): an amphetamine laboratory set up with simple laboratory glassware and other readily obtained equipment {Depart ment o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open Exhibition 2)
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): a corset containing packages o f heroin, worn by a courier (D epartm ent o f Business and Consumer A ffairs; Open E xhibit 2)
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): condoms containing cannabis oil sw allow edfor concealment inside the body (Departm ent o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open E xhibit 2)
ÏÏÏι(£Î
Î \ N \ K 1
J ν'fW IT H solving gxT U RN AROUND ACTIO
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): packages o f heroin inside a toy hovercraft sent by Parcels Post (Department o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open Exhibit 2)
LSD and certain abused medicinal drugs
Flow of LSD and certain abused medicinal drugs
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): cannabis (Thai sticks) concealed inside an amplifier. Fourteen packages were hidden in this item o f electrical equipment (D epartment o f Business and Consumer A ffairs; Open E xhibit 2)
M ethods o f illegal importation {see Parts I V and V III): flotation gear and signalling devices {above) used in connection with a sea drop o f cannabis in the fo rm o f Thai sticks {below) {Department o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open Exhibit 2)
'
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): cannabis resin discovered in sealed cans o f pickles im ported fro m Lebanon (D epartm ent o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open E xhibit 2)
Methods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): cannabis (Thai sticks) concealed in car tyre. This tyre could be used normally without any indication that it held packages o f drugs (Department o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open E xhibit 2)
M ethods o f illegal importation (see Part IV ): heroin concealed inside a toy animal. Such a toy m ight be carried through Custom s by a child (D epartm ent o f Business and Consumer Affairs; Open E xhibit 2)
Coastal surveillance (see Part V III): a deserted airstrip in the Northern Territory showing signs o f recent use and drums o f fu e l alongside the runway (R A A F photograph)
Organised crime (see Part I V) : firearm s, ammunition, false vehicle registration plates and other items discovered in a police raid in Queensland made in con nection with drugs and other illegal activities ( Queensland State Police; Confidential Exhibit 71)
A Cannabis sativa plant. This specimen is immature; a mature plant could reach a height o f 10-12 feet.
Part I
Introduction
Part I Introduction
Chapter 1 .
Chapter 2 â
C h apter 3.
H i s t o r y a n d C o n d u c t o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n
T h e T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e o f th e C o m m i s s i o n
D i s c u s s i o n o f the T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e
C h a p t e r 4. M a t t e r s I n c i d e n t a l to th e I n q u i r y a n d
P r e p a r a t i o n o f th e R e p o r t
This P a r t d e a l s w i t h the g e n e s i s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t o f the
C o m m i s s i o n ' s R e p o r t .
C h a p t e r 1 r e c o u n t s b r i e f l y t h e h i s t o r y o f the C o m m i s s i o n ,
giv e s s o m e s t a t i s t i c a l m a t e r i a l r e l a t i n g to i t s w o r k a n d
s h o r t l y r e c o u n t s the s t e p s it t o o k to d i s c h a r g e i t s o b l i g a t i o n
to r e p o r t on th e m a t t e r s s u b m i t t e d in the T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e .
C h a p t e r 2 s e t s o u t the T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e c o n t a i n e d in
the f i v e C o m m i s s i o n s w h i c h i s s u e d . T h e G o v e r n m e n t o f the
C o m m o n w e a l t h o f A u s t r a l i a a n d t h e G o v e r n m e n t s o f t h e S t a t e s
of V i c t o r i a , Q u e e n s l a n d , W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a a n d T a s m a n i a
i s s u e d C o m m i s s i o n s w h i c h d i f f e r e d in a n u m b e r o f r e s p e c t s b u t
the T e r m s of R e f e r e n c e c o n t a i n e d in t h o s e C o m m i s s i o n s a r e
i d e n t i c a l . T h e f u l l t e x t o f th e C o m m i s s i o n s is n o t s e t o u t
as t h e i m p o r t a n t p a r t s o f the C o m m i s s i o n s a r e the i d e n t i c a l
T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e .
C h a p t e r 3 d i s c u s s e s the m e a n i n g a n d a m b i t of the T e r m s o f
R e f e r e n c e . In d o i n g so, it f o r e s h a d o w s to some e x t e n t h o w
they w i l l be a d d r e s s e d in the R e p o r t .
C h a p t e r 4 c o n t a i n s a n u m b e r o f p a r t i c u l a r m a t t e r s r e l e v a n t
to the C o m m i s s i o n ' s w o r k . It is b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y f u r n i s h a
n e c e s s a r y b a c k g r o u n d f o r the r e a d e r . A s t h e t o p i c s d e a l t w i t h
r a n g e f r o m t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h th e N e w S o u t h
W a l e s a n d S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n s , w h o s e T e r m s o f
R e f e r e n c e o v e r l a p p e d to s o m e e x t e n t t h o s e o f t h i s C o m m i s s i o n ,
to the t r e a t m e n t t h i s C o m m i s s i o n h a s a c c o r d e d c o n f i d e n t i a l
e v i d e n c e it h a s r e c e i v e d , it is o b v i o u s l y n o t p r a c t i c a l to
s u m m a r i s e the C h a p t e r .
A 1
A2
Chapter 1 History and Conduct of the Commission
Establishment of the Commission
On 5 October 1977 the Prime Minister made a statement in the House of
Representatives in which he announced that the Government had completed arrangements to establish a National Royal Commission into Drugs. The
Royal Commission was to be constituted by Mr Justice Edward Straiten
Williams of the Queensland Supreme Court. In the course of his
statement the Prime Minister said 'The Government believes this to be a
most important step as it is clear from all accounts that the drug
problem extends right across Australia and is not confined to any one
State' .
The Prime Minister advised that the States of Victoria, Tasmania,
Western Australia and Queensland had agreed to the establishment of a
National Royal Commission and to the terms of reference proposed for
such a Commission. The procedure would be that the Commonwealth would
establish a Commonwealth Royal Commission and those States agreeing to support the National Royal Commission would take steps to appoint the
Commonwealth Royal Commissioner to head identical inquiries under State legislation. Discussions had been held, he said, with New South Wales
and South Australia with the object of promoting co-operation and co ordination with the existing drug inquiries in each of those States, and negotiations were still proceeding with those States with regard to the national inquiry.
The Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs was
established by Letters Patent dated 13 October 1977 issued by the
Governor-General. Letters Patent, incorporating identical terms of
reference, were issued to Mr Justice E. S. Williams, by the Governor of
Queensland (27 October), the Governor of Tasmania (28 October), the
Lieutenant-Governor of Western Australia (2 November) and the Governor of Victoria (13 November). In the event, New South Wales and South
Australia did not formally participate in the national inquiry although, as indicated below, a measure of co-operation was received from these
States. In addition, the Commission's work was assisted by the cordial
relations and mutual co-operation which were established with the two
State drug commissions.
Preparations for Hearings
Immediately upon its establishment, the Commission actively set
about inviting submissions from all persons and organisations in the
community with knowledge, information or views relevant to the
Commission's Terms of Reference.
Individual letters were addressed to Federal and State Ministers, Members of the several Parliaments, Members of the Legislative
Assemblies in the Territories, and the presiding officers of local
government authorities in all States.
A3
Prior to the commencement of hearings the Commissioner visited each of the capital cities. He made personal calls upon Federal Ministers
responsible for departments, the functions of which were particularly relevant to the Commission's Terms of R e f e r e n c e . A similar course was
followed with the Premier and relevant Ministers in each of the
p a r t i cipating States. Calls were also made upon senior members of the
jud i c i a r y and Commissioners of Police.
The Commissioner and Senior Counsel assisting the Commission gave
numerous p r e s s , radio and television interviews with the object of
encouraging the widest possible response from all sections of the
community.
The Commission's main office was situated in Brisbane. Local 'shop
f r o n t ' offices were set up in prominent locations in each of the State
capitals and in Canberra and Darwin. The locations, functions and
telephone numbers of these offices were widely advertised. At each
office a 'local officer' of the Commission was available to assist the
public by answering inquiries and by assisting people who wished to give information to the Commission. A comprehensive campaign of press
advertisements p r eceded each public hearing of the Commission.
The Commission approached m a n y persons and organisations seeking
e v i d e n c e , based on their known or reputed knowledge or expertise in drug related a r e a s . A systematic screening of the major newspapers and other media elicited a large number of other potential sources of information. The staff of the Commission provided assistance to many intending
witnesses in the preparation of written statements of evidence.
Hearings of the Commission opened in Canberra on 17 November 1977.
Up to 6 N o vember 1979 the Commission had sat on a total of 152 d a y s , in
the following centres:
The number of witnesses who have given evidence to the Commission
either by appearing in person and/or by presentation of submissions or
other documents approximates 2000.
The evidence is recorded in 24 372 pages of transcript (81 bound
volumes). Of these 24 372 pages of transcript, 10 420 pages record
Hearings
Canberra Perth Hobart
Launceston Brisbane Melbourne Darwin Adelaide Sydney
13 7 7 1
74 16 6 6 22
Evidence
A4
evidence given confidentially. A total of 684 open exhibits (41 000
pages) and 369 confidential exhibits (14 000 pages) have been tendered.
A number of sitting days in Brisbane were wholly engaged in
incorporating documentary material into the transcript or in receiving exhibits without the necessity of any witnesses being called.
Inspections
From time to t i m e , both prior to and in the course of its h e a r i n g s ,
the Commission inspected a number of establishments and organisations engaged in activities relevant to the Terms of R e f e r e n c e . These
included law e n f o r c e m e n t , e d u c a t i o n , treatment and rehabilitation
organisations and e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . The Commissioner and counsel
assisting took the opportunity on the occasion of such inspections to
discuss relevant matters with those engaged in the actual activities.
In addition the Commission saw and heard a number of f i l m s , video tapes,
slides and photographs dealing with a variety of matters relevant to its Terms of R e f e r e n c e .
Overseas Visits
In October 1977, prior to the receipt of his Commissions, the
Commissioner took the opportunity of having discussions in London with officers of the Home Office and of Her Majesty's Customs having
responsibility for drug law enforcement and the monitoring of the use of d r u g s .
In M a y 1978, Mr Geoffrey Miller, one of the junior counsel assisting
the Commission, while in the United Kingdom had discussions with
authorities responsible for the treatment of heroin addicts and
inspected a number of establishments engaged in such treatment. He also undertook an extensive examination of Customs arrangements at Heathrow Airport, London.
In July/August 1978 the Commissioner, accompanied by Senior C o u n s e l , visited the A m e r i c a s . That visit included Chile, Argentina, B r a z i l ,
Peru, M e x i c o , the United States and Canada. Meetings were arranged with and discussions had with officers with responsibilities in the areas of law e n f o r c e m e n t , t r e a t m e n t , rehabilitation and education and a number of establishments and localities were visited and inspected. In December
1978 the Commissioner, in the course of a visit to Hong Kong, had
extensive discussions there with authorities responsible in the areas of law enforcement, treatment, rehabilitation and e d u c a t i o n . A number of inspections of facilities such as forensic l a b o r a t o r i e s , drug addict
registration control and treatment facilities were carried out. The
Commissioner and Senior Counsel visited South East Asia in March/April 1979, the visit embracing S i n g a p o r e , T h a i l a n d , B u r m a , Indonesia and
Malaysia. They there had discussions with persons engaged in law
e n f o r c e m e n t , treatment, rehabilitation and education and inspected
various facilities and localities.
A5
In Ma y 1979, Mr Martin Moynihan, one of the junior counsel assisting
the C o m m i s s i o n , v isited the West Coast of the United States where he had
p a r t icular regard to law enforcement organisation and methods for
dealing with organised c r i m e .
During the course of the Commission the C o m m i ssioner had the
opportunity of m eeting and having discussions with a number of visitors
to Australia with particular interest or expertise relevant to the
Commission's Terms of Reference.
A6
Chapter 2 The Terms of Reference of the Commission
To inquire into and report on the following matters relating to
drugs:
(a) the extent of, and the methods used in
(i) the illegal importation of drugs;
(ii) the illegal exportation of drugs;
(iii) the illegal production of drugs;
and
(iv) the illegal trafficking in drugs;
(b) the places where drugs mentioned in paragraph (a) are produced or
from which they are obtained and the places to which those drugs are
s e n t ;
(c) the extent to which
(i) drugs are illegally used;
(ii) drugs lawfully obtained are diverted to illegal trafficking or illegal uses; or
(iii) drugs are misused in so far as such misuse is relevant to the illegal use of drugs;
(d) the extent (if any) to which the illegal activities mentioned in
paragraph (a) or the illegal use or the diversion mentioned in
paragraph (c) are engaged in, directly or indirectly, by persons who engage, on an organised basis, in other illegal activities, whether or not related to drugs;
(e) the adequacy of existing laws (including the appropriateness of the penalties) and of existing law enforcement (including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies) in relation to the prohibition, restriction or control of the importation,
exportation, production, possession, supply or use of or trafficking in, drugs; and
(f) whether new laws should be enacted or other measures taken
(including the taking of initiatives for the making or revision of
international agreements) to remedy any inadequacies found to exist under paragraph ( e).
For the purposes of this Inquiry:
(g) the expression 'drug' means a narcotic or psychotropic substance and includes every drug or substance specified in any of the schedules
A7
to the Single Convention on N arcotic Drugs or the C o n vention on
Psychotropic Substances;
(h) a reference to a drug includes a reference to an article or
substance containing a d r u g ;
(i) a reference to the pro d u c t i o n of a drug includes a reference to the
manufacture of a drug b y any means and also includes a reference to
the cultivation or p r o duction of any plant or substance from which a
drug is capable of being derived; and
(j) a reference to the importation or exportation of, or to trafficking
in, a drug includes a reference to the importation or exportation
of, or to trafficking in, a plant or substance referred to in
paragraph (i) or of a seed from wh i c h such a plant can be
c u l t i v a t e d .
To the extent that alcohol ma y be regarded as a narcotic substance
to have regard to it only in so far as it is n e cessary to do so for the
purpose of establishing the extent of the illegal use, or of the m i s u s e ,
of other drugs in accordance with paragraph ( c ) .
The Commission is authorised to conduct its inquiry into the matters m e ntioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) above in combination with any inquiry
into the same matters, or into any other matters relating to d r u g s , as
directed or authorised b y any Commission or Commissions issued, or in
pursuance of any order or appointment made, by any Governor of a State.
A8
Chapter 3 Discussion of the Terms of Reference
The Letters Patent require an inquiry and report on six main matters
paragraphed (a) to (f). These six paragraphs are concisely expressed
and in some aspects are sub-divided further. It is desirable to
consider the meaning of these Terms of Reference by paragraph and to
discuss shortly some difficulties that have been encountered in
reporting upon them.
Term (a): 'the extent of, and the methods used in
(i) the illegal importation of drugs;
(ii) the illegal exportation of dru g s ;
(iii) the illegal production of drugs; and
(iv) the illegal trafficking in drugs;'
The inquiry necessary is into two aspects of four activities. The
activities are those of illegal importation, exportation, production and trafficking in drugs. Little difficulty arises in the meaning of each
of these four w o r d s .
'Importation' is defined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as: 'The action of importing goods, e t c . from abroad; opposite to exportation.
Bringing in, introduction.' The only difficulty that arises is that the existence of four State Commissions in identical terms might suggest
that in a State Commission the words 'importation' and 'exportation'
relate to the bringing in to or sending out of that State rather than
into or out of Australia as a whole. However this seems a pedantic
approach, especially when it is remembered that the four State
Commissions issued subsequently to the Federal Commission. Importation and exportation in this report are therefore taken to refer to bringing
drugs into or taking drugs out of Australia.
'Production' is: 'The action of producing; the fact or condition of being produced; an act of producing. That which is produced; a thing
that results from any action, process, or effort'.
It is noted that in its ordinary meaning, 'production', as used in
this paragraph, will encompass any action or process or effort which
results in the making of an illegal drug.
The verb 'to traffic' means 'To carry on trade, to trade, to buy and
sell; to have commercial dealings with any one; to deal for a commodity. Occ a s . , To resort to a place for the purpose of trade. In a disparaging
sense, or said of dealing considered improper. To be concerned to busy
or exercise oneself (in some matter). To deal, intrigue, conspire (with someone, in, for, or to do something); to practise.' A trafficker is
A9
defined by the S horter Oxford Dic t i o n a r y as 'one who is engaged in
traffic or trade; a trader, merchant, d e a l e r . ' The dictionary notes
that since 1785 the word 1 trafficker' has be e n used with an opprobrious
f o r c e .
If one regarded, as seems reasonable, importation, exportation and p r o d uction as elements of usual trading, a trafficker could be defined
as a trader in drugs irrespective of whe t h e r he produces the goods in
which he deals or wh e t h e r he obtains them from another s o u r c e . It is of
course possible that a person could engage in the activities of
importation and e x p o rtation as an employee or otherwise not as a
principal trading in the goods he p h y sically imports or exports. It is
also possible that a pe r s o n could be engaged in the pro d u c t i o n of drugs
only, selling his p roduce to a trader, and never trade himself.
The aspects of these activities which are to be reported upon are
the 'extent of' and the 'methods used in'. Both of these aspects
present great difficulty; the activities inquired into are illegal and there is obvious d i f f iculty in obtaining reliable information which
covers the entire field of such illegal activities.
A quantitative assessment must be made to report on the extent of
these illegal activities. It is of course impossible to turn to any
officially maintained set of statistics or records for this purpose.
Law enforcement authorities m aintain statistics relating to seizures, arrests, prosecutions and convictions. These are of some assistance.
It was theoretically p o ssible for the C o m mission to use its po w e r of
coercion b y calling large numbers of people with a vi e w to making its
own table of statistics. However, had the C o m m ission sought to identify all persons engaged in the illegal drug activities and then to endeavour to obtain from them information upon the size and nature of their
o p e r a t i o n s , it is clear that many years wo u l d have elapsed before a
report was concluded. Even then it must be suspected that the
information would have been incomplete as new people would from time to
time have entered into these activities. The Commission therefore
adopted a compromise approach of endeavouring to examine some operations only in depth. The assessment has therefore be e n based upon a number of
sources, none of wh i c h could be regarded as wholly satisfactory; for
this reason the assessment is not so objectively based as if it had been
one made of legal and open activities.
The other aspect of the illegal activities upon which a report is
required is the methods used for these activities. Here the Commission
is able to rely upon evidence which shows what methods have been used
when offenders have been convicted or when seizures of drugs have been
made. There is no doubt that methods are continually changing and for
this reason it is prudent also to consider methods which m a y be used, or
indeed ma y have been used even though law enforcement activities have
not demonstrated the use of such methods to date.
A10
Term ( b ) : 'The places where drugs mentioned in p a r a g r a p h (a)
are produced or from which they are obtained and the places to
wh i c h those drugs are s e n t ; '
This question is s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . The places in question of course
are not limited to places inside Australia as will appear from the
report.
Term ( c ) : 'The extent to wh i c h
(i) drugs are illegally used;
(ii) drugs lawfully obtained are diverted to illegal
trafficking or illegal uses; or
(iii) drugs are m isused insofar as such misuse is relevant
to the illegal use of drugs;'
Three questions are po s e d h e r e , but they are not n e c e ssarily interÂ
related.
The first question seeks to discover the extent to w h i c h drugs are
used contrary to law. It is impossible to run through the list of drugs
the subject of the two international conventions and discuss the illegal use of each drug. The evidence before the Commission does not establish
that all of these drugs are illegally used in Australia. It is proposed
to report upon this Term b y limiting the report to an assessment of the
extent to which drugs referred to in the evidence as the subject of not
infrequent illegal use are in fact used illegally. It is material to
point out that the source of illegality for all the activities mentioned in the Terms of Reference is the statute law of the Commonwealth of
Australia or of the States of Australia. It therefore will be desirable
to set out at some length this legislation. It will also be n e c essary
to have regard to the international conventions wh i c h seek to control
the use of d r u g s . For the purpose of this question regard mu s t be paid
to the footnote to the Terms of Reference:
To the extent that alcohol m a y be regarded as a narcotic
substance to have regard to it only in so far as it is
necessary to do so for the purpose of establishing the extent
of the illegal u s e , or of the m i s u s e , of other drugs in
accordance with p a ragraph ( c ) .
The concept of 'illegal u s e ' occurs in each of the three questions
under this Term of Reference whilst that of 'm i s u s e ' occurs only in the
third question under this Term. Accordingly what follows here regarding alcohol must be borne in mind when the other two questions under this
Term are considered.
A l l
Alcohol must be regarded only insofar as it is n e c essary to do so
for the purpose of establishing the extent to which drugs other than
alcohol are illegally u s e d . There are obviously some difficulties in
construing Term of Reference (c) because of the introduction for the
first time of alcohol. It seems hard to do more, when answering the
questions in Term ( c ) , than to have regard to alcohol for the purpose of
considering what connection there may be b etween the use of alcohol and
the extent of the illegal use of other drugs.
Evidence shows people are reluctant accurately to account for their consumption of legal drugs so it is not surprising that it is difficult
to get accurate information on their consumption of illegal drugs.
There are no comprehensive and u niform statistics in Australia to which
recourse could be made to answer this q u e s t i o n . One turns again to the
records of enforcement authorities on seizures of drugs and on arrests
for drug offences or drug-related o f f e n c e s . Were sufficient statistics kept, drug-related deaths and statistics on the incidence of serum
hepa.titis might be used as some indicator of the extent of illegal use.
The Commission heard evidence, m o s t l y during in camera sessions, from a large number of persons who had used or were using drugs illegally.
There have been a number of surveys of parts of the population done, but
it is difficult to obtain much more than trends from these surveys for a
number of reasons which will be discussed later. The result again is
that one must lack confidence in the accuracy of any assessment that
could be made upon the material p r esently available in Australia.
The second q u estion predicates that drugs are in the lawful
p o s s ession or custody of someone and they are then diverted to a use
which is i l l e g a l . That use will be as an article of illegal commerce
and ultimately of illegal consumption. As it will later appear, drugs
available on prescription can only be legally used by the pe r s o n to whom
the prescription is made out; it is not illegal for that per s o n to
misuse or abuse the drug by using it inconsistently with the treatment
for which it was p r e s c r i b e d . H owever if such a person sells or gives
his prescribed drugs to another person then he is illegally dealing in
drugs and the person who receives and consumes the drug is illegally
using it. This is one example. The question is a multiple one because
many persons may have legal possession of drugs the subject of legal
c o n t r o l s - - m a n u f a c t u r e r s , importers, wholesalers, pharmacists, hospitals, n u r s e s , medical practitioners, veterinary scientists, dentists and so on. At some time or another most of the population would, as persons
undergoing medical treatment, have had lawful p o s session of drugs which could be converted to an unlawful u s e . The question encompasses the
extent to which children might steal their grandmother's tranquillisers for distribution among their fellows, as well as the extent to which
large stocks of drugs might be stolen from warehouses for illegal
distribution. Enough has been said to show that it will be impossible
to answer this question with any confidence that the quantitative
assessment will be accurate.
The third question requires establishment of some definition for
'misuse'. The conventional words are 'use', ' misuse' and 'abuse'. One
of the meanings given for the verb 'abuse' in the Shorter Oxford
Dictionary is 'to m i s u s e '. The definition is 'To disuse. To misuse; to
A 1 2
take a ba d advantage of. To misrepresent; to adulterate. To make false
pretensions. To misuse any one's confidence; to impose upon him. r e f l .
and p a s s . To be deceived. To i l l - u s e . To violate. To wrong with
words; to m a l i g n . '
'Misuse' 'To use or employ w ro n g l y or improperly; to misapply. To
maltreat, ill-use. To violate. To misconduct oneself. To speak evil
of; to revile, d e r i d e . To d e c e i v e .' Dr C. P. V. E v a n s , Deputy
Director-General, Commonwealth Department of Health, said: 'It is
doubtful if there is any value in distinguishing between " u s e " , "misuse" and "abuse".' This may be so but it is necessary for the purpose of the
Report to hit on some definition of 'misuse'. The most certain meaning
of 'misuse' would be 'the use of drugs obtained on prescription b y the
person for whom they were prescribed in a manner not in accordance with
the instruction given for their use'. This probably covers the case of
excessive use of drugs where the person obtains several prescriptions
from several doctors. It does not cover the use of non-prescribed
d r u g s , that is over-the-counter d r u g s , nor the use of other substances
used for their drug effects, such as the sniffing of volatile solvents.
Reference to the definition of 'drug' which appears in p a r agraph (g)
does not assist to narrow the definition of 'misuse' as volatile
solvents would be a drug within that definition of drug. It seems
necessary to define ' misuse' for the purpose of this question as meaning 'the use of a drug for a purpose contrary to the m e d ically prescribd
purpose of use or of a substance not popularly considered as a drug for
an effect upon the mind and m o o d '. Again, alcohol must be considered
for the purpose of this question. A report is also required then upon
the extent to which there is a connection between the use of alcohol and
the use of drugs for purposes which are not the usual or medically
prescribed purposes for their use and the illegal use of drugs.
Term ( d ) : 'The extent (if any) to which the illegal activities
mentioned in paragraph (a) or the illegal use or the diversion
mentioned in paragraph (c) are engaged in, directly or
indirectly, by persons who engage, on an organised basis, in
other illegal activities, whether or not related to drugs;'
This question asks to what extent do persons who engage on an
organised basis in other illegal activities, whether or not related to
drugs, engage in the activities of:
- illegally importing drugs - illegally exporting drugs - illegally producing drugs - illegally trafficking in drugs - illegally using drugs
- illegally d iverting drugs.
For the purpose of this question it seems legitimate to collect all
these illegal activities except 'using' under the head of 'trafficking' in d r u g s . So e x p r e s s e d , the question is directed to the extent that
people engaged in organised criminal activities also engage in illegal drug trafficking and illegal drug u s e .
A 1 3
Terms of R e f erence (a) (b) (c) and (d) are not susceptible to a
discrete answer to each question. This is because factual material
relevant to one question is so often relevant to another question or
other questions. After considerable experimentation it was demonstrated that the report on these Terms of Reference would be more clear if the
questions they raise were considered under the headings:
Pro d u c t i o n of illegal drugs
Methods of importation of illegal drugs
Extent of importation of illegal drugs
Exp o r t a t i o n of illegal drugs: methods and extent
Trafficking in illegal drugs
The extent (i) of illegal use of drugs
(ii) of illegal diversion of drugs (iii) of misuse of drugs as far as is
relevant to the illegal use of drugs
The Organised Basis of Drug-related Crime
Under these headings the Terms of Reference have be e n shown in Part
IV of this Report.
Term (e ) : 'The adequacy of existing laws (including the
appropriateness of the penalties) and of existing law
enforcement (including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies) in relation to the prohibition,
restriction or control of the importation, exportation,
production, possession, supply or use of or trafficking in,
d r u g s ;'
There is no limitation in the Commission given by the Governor-
General -in- Council wh i c h would make this Term and the following Term
relate only to laws of the Commonwealth. The fact that there are also
four State Commissions in identical terms makes it clear that the
legislation of at least those four States must be considered. In New
South Wales and South Australia there are State Commissions wi t h terms
of reference not wholly dissimilar and it is expected that they will
make recommendations in relation to the laws of those two States. It
nevertheless s e e m s , on a proper construction of this Term of R e f e r e n c e , that this Commission should also examine the laws of New South Wales and
South Australia so far as they may be relevant to the matters raised in
this Term of Reference. It is clearly essential to deal with all law
enforcement agencies in Australia in considering the adequacy of
existing l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t .
Term of Reference (e) however does contain within it one problem
which the Commission was called upon to resolve at an early p oint in its
proceedings. The term is undoubtedly heavily orientated to enforcement
A 14
but the submission was made to the Commission that it did not deal
exclusively with e n f o r c e m e n t . 1 The adequacy of existing laws in
relation to the--- restriction or control of the use o f---drugs'
clearly raised, the Commission was urged, a consideration of laws
dealing with treatment of drug users and the education of the community
generally and parts of it in particular regarding drug use. Government
agencies both Commonwealth and State made extensive submissions to the Commission in relation to this construction of Term of Reference ( e ) .
This construction is supported by Term (f) wh i c h asks not only whether
new laws should be enacted but also whether other measures should be
taken to remedy any inadequacy in existing laws which the Commission
believes to exist.
The Commissioner ruled that the wider construction was the correct
one. Three reasons moved him to rule this way:
* This construction conforms more with the words expressly used.
* Discussion of drug abuse over recent years in Australia and overseas
had highlighted that drug abuse control was not exclusively a matter for the criminal law and Terms of Reference wh i c h were intended to
restrict the Commission simply to an examination of the criminal law and its enforcement could easily have expressed this intention.
* In addition statements made by the Prime Minister and State Premiers
in announcing the Royal Commission had made it clear that the
Governments expected a report on drug abuse.
Term (f) : 'Whether new laws should be enacted or other measures
taken (including the taking of initiatives for the making or
revision of international agr e e m e n t s ) to remedy any
inadequacies found to exist under paragraph ( e ) .1
Again, this Term of Reference is quite s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d . It is only
necessary to note that the 'other measures' which may be taken are
extremely wide as they include but are not co-extensive with the taking
of international initiatives.
A 15
A 16
Chapter 4 Matters Incidental to the Inquiry and Preparation of the Report In the conduct of the inquiry and the preparation of the Report, a
number of incidental matters have arisen concerning which some
explanatory comment is necessary.
Reporting Arrangements
Major Report
This Report is the major report of the Commission. It is addressed
to the commissioning governments, namely the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the States of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. By agreement with the Government of the Northern
Territory, which has achieved an autonomous status since the
Commonwealth issued its Letters Patent, the Report is also addressed to that Government.
The Commission has seen it as necessary to take a national ---and,
where appropriate, international -- view. In many areas relevant to the Commission's inquiries there are of course significant State
differences, and where these occur they have been recognised and
acknowledged in the Report. The Prime Minister's announcement of the
establishment of the Commission, the Commission's Terms of Reference, the issuing of commissions by five Governments and the receipt of
evidence from all States, together with the character of the issues
which emerged as the Commission proceeded, all combined to impel the
Commission to take a broad, national perspective.
Although the Report is substantial in size, it has been possible to
include within its pages no more than an indication of the main thrust
of evidence received on any topic sufficient to provide a background
which will enable the reader to follow the Commission's conclusions and recommendations. In order to facilitate so far as possible access to
the detail of the open evidence received by the Commission,
consideration is currently being given to the possibility of making
available for public release in due course a microfiche version of the
open transcript of evidence and of selected open exhibits. For obvious
reasons, a similar course cannot be followed in respect of the
confidential evidence received. The more important confidential
evidence is summarised in this Report.
This Report will be presented to the participating governments in
five parts one of which is to be confidential. The Report will be later
typeset, printed in bulk and published, without the confidential
component. This Report will be followed by a volume summarising the
detail of the legislation which the Commission has outlined and
recommended. It is regretted that time constraints have not permitted
an index to accompany this Report to the Governments but it is hoped
that the printed Report will contain the index presently in course of
compilaton. The Commission will publish a comprehensive list describing
A 1 7
witnesses and exhibits to allow the interested person to obtain with its
assistance a pic t u r e of the evidence given to the C o m mission better than
that obtainable from the open transcript alone.
. Interim Report
On 18 S e ptember 1979 the C o m m ission p r e sented to the Commonwealth
Government an interim report on the Narcotics Bureau. That report was
pre p a r e d in response to a request dated 7 August 1979 b y the Prime
Min i s t e r which had been authorised b y the Governor-General. The report
consisted of 13 pages of conclusions and recommendations supported by
some 154 pages of appendices.
As the interim report dealt solely with a single Commonwealth
agency, it went only to the Governor-General on behalf of the
Commonwealth. In p r e s e n t i n g it, the Commissioner expressed a preference that the report be treated as confidential. The desire that it be so
treated was based on the fact that it cited confidential evidence
received with clear assurances of confidential treatment. This also
permitted the making of frank criticisms to an extent not desirable in a
public report.
The C o m m o nwealth Government acceded to the Commission's suggestion regarding the c o nfidentiality of the report. Subsequently, however,
arrangements were made with the Commission's concurrence to table in the C o m m o nwealth Par l i a m e n t an edited version of the report pr o p e r (though
not the appendices). The editing involved only the d e letion of
references to the appendices.
. Other Special Reports
On 20 November 1979 the Queensland Government formally requested the Commission to give p r i o r i t y to consideration of allegations that certain Members of the State Parliament and officers of the Queensland Police
Force have been involved in illegal drug trade. As this ma t t e r was
clearly within its Terms of R e f e r e n c e , the Commission signified its
willingness to investigate the allegations and report to the Queensland G o v e r n m e n t . The Commission will present a report to the Government on
the ma t t e r as soon as p o s s i b l e .
From the time of its e s t a b l i s h m e n t , the Commission has recognised
the need to consider separate reports to be presented to individual
Governments on matters of p a r ticular concern to them. The C o m mission is
currently reviewing the evidence received by it to determine whether
there is a need for any such r e p o r t s .
Urgency
A lthough the ve r y broad Terms of Reference of the Commission have
meant that its public hearings have been necessarily protracted, every
endeavour has been made to evaluate the evidence and prepare this Report
A 1 8
as quickly as p o s s i b l e . A certain urgency is given to the situation by
the propensity for change or fluidity in the drug environment (notably
in the legislation and law enforcement a r e a s ) , which on occasion can
date or even render obsolete findings based on factual evidence which
may be only a ve r y few months old.
Because of the desire to present the Report to Government at the
earliest possible time, the actual writing of the Report has of
necessity been compressed within a relatively brief period of time.
Some indication of this is given b y the fact that the last evidence
dealt wi t h in this Report was received by the Commission as recently as
27 September 1979.
Multiple Commissions
As stated previously, the Commissioner holds Letters Patent from the Commonwealth and the States of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania. Strictly speaking, therefore, there exist five separate Royal Commissions.
Because there is a single Commissioner for all five Commissions with all of the Commissions having common terms of reference and since the
objectives of the Commission are national in character, it has seemed
appropriate to present a single Report to all five appointing
G o v e r n m e n t s . At the same time, h o w e v e r , there is no impediment to the
presentation of separate reports to particular Governments on matters pertaining distinctively to those Governments if the need should arise.
The multiplicity of Commissions would strictly require that
references within the Report to the several Commissions should take the plural form. It has been more convenient to use the singular form
'C o m m i s s i o n ' .
Letters Patent
The Commission is still pursuing its i n q u i r i e s , and the presentation of this Report therefore does not constitute the complete discharge of
the Commission's mandate. The Commissioner will accordingly not return the Letters Patent received from the respective Governments until the
total task has been completed.
Staffing of the Commission
Upon the establishment of the Commission, the Commonwealth Attorney- General ' s Department retained counsel to assist the Commission, and
provided instructing solicitors. The commissioning States were
particularly generous in readily providing instructing solicitors as required to undertake relevant State activities associated with the work of the Commission.
A 19
As is usual wi t h Royal C o m m i s s i o n s , the D e p artment of A dministrative Services seconded staff to the C o m m ission to form a secretariat. The
Commonwealth D e p artment of Health, at the request of the Royal
C o m m i s s i o n e r , seconded the then Head of its Drugs of D e p endence Section. Subsequently other staff were recruited to undertake administrative, r e s e a r c h , editorial, secretarial and data pro c e s s i n g activities.
Investigatory Assistance
At the time of the establishment of the Commission, offers to
provide investigators to assist the Commission were made by the
Commonwealth Police Force and the Narcotics Bureau. At that stage the
Commission considered, on the view which it took of its Terms of
Reference, that it had no requirement for investigators and these offers of staff were not then taken up.
Subsequently, at the request of the Commission, the services of two
Commonwealth Police investigators were made available to the Commission for a period of about four weeks to undertake a special investigation.
The Commission called upon the Commonwealth Police Force on that
occasion as the i nvestigation related to inquiries wh i c h that Force had
earlier initiated. The two officers returned to Compel at the
conclusion of the investigation.
A further request was made by the C o m mission to the Commonwealth
Police Force in Ju l y 1978 for the services of investigators to undertake
a wide-ranging investigation into matters relating to organised c r i m e . Throughout this investigation the team of Compel investigators reported regularly to the Commission, although its members did not constitute
part of the Commission's staff and operated i ndependently from special
premises provided for them in Sydney.
These investigations continued until June 1979 when, w i t h the
establishment b y the Commonwealth and Ne w South Wales Governments of the Joint Task Force on D r u g Trafficking, the functions of the investigatory team were absorbed b y the n e w body. The Commonwealth's contribution to
the Joint Task Force was five Compel Officers and five Narcotics
I n v e s t i g a t o r s .
In November 1979 the Commission constituted a small team of four
investigators to undertake investigations into allegations that
prominent citizens of Queensland and some police officers were
associated with the illegal drug t r a d e . Two of the investigators were
Queensland police officers, and two were drawn from the A u s t ralian
Federal Police ( A F P ) . At the express request of the Commission, one of
the AFP officers was selected from the former Narcotics Bureau.
Throughout the life of the Commission the assistance of Compol, the
Narcotics Bureau, and the State police forces has been regularly sought by the Commission and unstintingly given.
A20
Location of Hearings
One matter which exercised the thinking of the Commission throughout the period of receiving evidence was the optimum number and location of
centres for public h e a r i n g s . The Commission was conscious of the
prospect that if it sat in too few centres there was the risk that
intending witnesses would find it difficult to attend and would
therefore be deterred from coming forward. On the other hand it was
clearly recognised that the undue p roliferation of hearing venues would vastly increase the cost of the Commission and could lead to squandering of precious time and energy on the part of the Commissioner and the
staff of the Commission. Initially, the Commission sat in the six State
capital cities and in C a n b e r r a , Darwin and L a u n c e s t o n . It was found
that these hearings attracted witnesses not only from the immediate
precincts of the cities concerned, but also from provincial cities and
country towns within the several States.
The Commission received strong urgings from civic leaders in certain provincial cities to hold hearings in those cities, and many local
newspapers took up the same t h e m e . In several instances it was arranged
for legal staff of the Commission to visit more distant cities to gather
evidence, take statements, and assess whether the number of potential
witnesses would justify hearings being held in those cities. Letters to local councils and press advertisements coincided w i t h the visits. The results were disappointing and it was concluded that there was no
justification for going beyond the several cities in which the first
round of hearings had been held.
In several regional centres arrangements were made for people who
wished to place information before the Commission to make reverse charge telephone calls to the Commission's office. This facility was widely
advertised in the areas c o n c e r n e d . In a number of cases, action was
taken to fly witnesses to hearings in the appropriate State capital,
this being considered in the circumstances to be a more cost-effective
approach than the decentralisation of hearings. This, incidentally,
partly accounts for the relatively high number of sitting days in
Brisbane. Another reason is that on some occasions evidence was
incorporated without the necessity to call witnesses.
The Commission is satisfied that the arrangements made provided a
reasonable opportunity for all wishing to come forward to present their evidence to the Commission.
New South Wales and South A u s t r a l i a---Special Arrangements
Because of the necessity to make the findings of the Commission as
national in character as possible, the Commission felt it should hold
hearings also in Sydney and Adelaide notwithstanding the absence of a
commission from the respective State G o v e r n m e n t s . The Commission sat
and received evidence in Sydney on 3 occasions for a total of 22 sitting
days and in Adelaide on 3 occasions for a total of 6 sitting d a y s .
A2 1
In the case of South Australia, the State Government nominated a
liaison officer through whom the Commission's instructing staff were
able to gain ready access to officers of the Government of South
Australia. The Commission was able thus to obtain comprehensive
official evidence. So far as Ne w South Wales was concerned, a solicitor
from the Crown Solicitor's Office was n o m inated in Ju l y 1978 to act as a
'c o n d u i t ' through whom requests for information from the Commission were directed. This arrangement also resulted in comprehensive and useful
official information being made available to the Commission. Both
Governments also facilitated the release of appropriate senior officials to appear before the Commission as witnesses.
Inter-Commission Co-operation
Throughout the life of the Commission there existed a cordial
relationship wi t h the Ro y a l Commissions inquiring into aspects of drugs in Ne w South Wales and South Australia. Of particular value was the
exchange of the open transcript of evidence with the other C o m m i s s i o n s . This Commission found it u s e f u l , and indeed time saving, to incorporate appropriate sections of the transcript of evidence of the other
Commissions into its own transcript of evidence. Appropriate
acknowledgment has been made where such evidence has been referred to in the Commission's Report.
In arriving at its conclusions, this Commission had the advantage of the views of each of the South A u s tralian and the Ne w South Wales Royal
Commissions. Where the Commission has acted upon any part of such
report or reports, suitable acknowledgments have been made.
In their common concern to inquire at depth into the matter of
organised crime, the N e w South Wales Royal Commission into Drug
Trafficking and this Commission were associated in the p r o motion of an
inter-government Joint Task Force involving Commonwealth and Ne w South Wales law enforcement agencies. This initiative is referred to in more
detail elsewhere in this Report.
'States' and the 'Territories'
Co-operation is the key to effective action against drug abuse.
A lthough the Commission can formally recommend only to the Commonwealth and participating States, in practical terms, the co-operation of all is essential. In this sense a reference in this Report to the States will
be taken to refer to all States. Similarly it includes the Territories
without the necessity to expressly say so.
Currency of Evidence
It was the experience of the Commission that the greater part of the
available useful evidence was received in the first twelve months or so
of its life. However, the Commission deliberately refrained from
discouraging witnesses from coming forward me r e l y because its inquiries were coming to an e n d . No cut off dates were set beyond which
A22
submissions would no longer be r e c e i v e d , nor has any impediment been
placed in the way of any potential witness from coming forward right
through to the time when this Report was released for printing.
In the above connection, it is relevant to refer again to the
fluidity evidenced in certain areas dealt w i t h in the Commission's Terms of R e f e r e n c e . For e x a m p l e , drug-related legislation and law enforcement structures have in certain cases been subject to considerable c h a n g e ,
which has necessitated action on the Commission's part to update the
evidence it was h o l d i n g . The Department of Business and Consumer
Affairs undertook quite significant organisational changes in areas
relevant to drugs during the course of the Commission. In such an
environment it has not been possible to ensure that every part of the
evidence has be e n suitably updated.
Terms of Reference
The Terms of Reference have already been discussed. A number of
submissions argued that they were too narrow in that the definitions
they contained had the practical effect of minimising if not excluding
alcohol and nicotine as drugs for the purpose of the Commission.
The Commission took the view that its Terms of Reference had been
deliberately framed so as to restrict the attention to be given to these
's o c i a l ' drugs, and indeed the Commission saw the wisdom in its being
able to focus its efforts upon illegal drug u s e . Even so, the Terms of
Reference were in fact of great b r e a d t h , requiring the Commission to
inquire, for example, into laws within nine separate jurisdictions.
Specific inclusions of the social drugs would inevitably have led to a
diversification of the Commission's efforts, and might well have
extended the life of the Commission to an unacceptable extent.
Whilst recognising the limits inherent in its Terms of R e f e r e n c e ,
the Commission h a s , throughout its deliberations, placed the widest
possible construction upon the Terms of R e f e r e n c e . This approach has in fact permitted it to take wide cognizance of evidence on the effects of
alcohol and tobacco, together with other forms of drug taking, such as
'solvent sniffing' and prescription drugs, which might arguably have
been outside the Terms of Reference had they been given a narrow or
legalistic interpretation. The Commission has been fortified in taking this approach by the terms of the Prime Minister's statement in the
House on 5 October 1977, on the establishment of the Commission, in
which he affirmed that the Government did not wish the Commission to be
inhibited by too narrow terms of r e f e r e n c e .
Evidentiary Approach
In addressing its Terms of Reference and writing its Report, the
Commission was conscious of the fact that two basically different
approaches or methodologies were open to it.
A23
On the one hand, it would have been possible for the Commission to
have p e rceived its task as the generation of an essay on appropriate
sociological, s c i e n t i f i c , medical and legal aspects of the drug
question. Consistent with this approach, the Commission would have had considerable freedom in the treatment of the evidence received, the
relevant learned literature, and its own predilections, views and
j u d g m e n t s .
On the other h a n d , the Commission might have broadly imposed upon
itself the rule that, so far as it was practicable, it would act only
upon material it obtained as evidence w hether oral or documentary. Such an approach, although it need not unduly restrict the sources from which evidence m a y come, imposes a discipline upon the w a y in wh i c h the
evidence is t r e a t e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , it generally means that material
which forms the basis of conclusions reached and recommendations made
can be examined subsequently. The inability of the Commission to
p ublish in camera evidence does reduce the force of this consideration
somewhat, but it is believed that the summarisation of mu c h of this
evidence within the Report will have offset this restriction.
The Commission saw it as being appropriate for it to adopt the
latter approach to its task. This decision is reflected in the
structure and content of the R e p o r t .
The Taking of Evidence
The Commission received m a n y written submissions from persons and
organisations in a variety of forms (e.g. s t a t e m e n t s , c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , publications, b o o k s ) . In the normal course these submissions were
formally taken into evidence, either in the transcript of evidence or as e x h i b i t s . Many of the authors of submissions subsequently presented
oral evidence, either on their own initiative or at the invitation of
the Commission.
The Commission sat in public and in confidential sessions. Hearings generally took a form and employed procedures broadly comparable to
court proceedings. Witnesses were either sworn on oath or made
a f f i r m a t i o n s , and a verbatim record of the evidence was taken down by
court r e p o r t e r s .
From the outset it was the belief of the Commission that the powers
of compulsion which were available to it to secure evidence should not
be employed except in the most unusual or compelling c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
Apart from a few cases in which subpoenas were issued at the request of
prospective witnesses with the object of affording legal protection to them, legal process was little used by the Commission to secure
e v i d e n c e .
The great majority of witnesses appearing before the Commission were not represented by counsel. Leave to appear was not refused to any
counsel who sought it.
A2 4
Nature and Treatment of Evidence
In inviting departments, organisations, and members of the community to place evidence before it, the Commission had always appreciated that there would be certain matters which, by their nature, would warrant
confidential treatment. Indeed, it was clear ---and this was borne out
in the experience of the Commission ---that certain important, sensitive material would only be forthcoming if guarantees of confidentiality were to be offered.
In receiving evidence the Commission generally invited individual witnesses to determine for themselves whether there were any matters
which they felt should be heard in camera. As a consequence some
witnesses gave the whole of their evidence in camera, while others gave
part in open session and the remainder in camera. Again others gave the
whole of their evidence in open session.
The Commissioner repeatedly gave firm assurances to witnesses giving 'in c a m e r a 1 evidence that their evidence would be accorded the strictest confidentiality. At an early stage in proceedings the Commissioner
ruled that evidence given in camera was not to be divulged outside the
Commission without an express order by him authorising such action. In
practical terms this has meant that not only the evidence itself but the
fact that a particular person gave confidential evidence has frequently not been disclosed. The Commissioner has indicated his wish that this
level of confidentiality remain in force for a period of at least ten
y e a r s .
In drawing conclusions from evidence given in camera, the Commission has been conscious of the need to treat such evidence with proper
diffidence. By virtue of the confidentiality rules which apply to it,
evidence given in camera by a witness is not subject to the same process
of public testing and scrutiny as evidence given in a public hearing.
For this reason, the Commission was concerned to satisfy itself that
such evidence was thoroughly tested for internal coherence, consistency with other evidence received, and general veracity. In addition, the
Commission has exercised circumspection in drawing conclusions from such evidence in the absence of other corroborating testimony.
In the preparation of the Report care has been taken to honour the
assurances given to witnesses with respect to confidentiality. In some cases the evidence itself is confidential and has not been referred to.
In most instances, however, confidentiality has been appropriately
preserved by depersonalising the evidence. The measures adopted have
been those which seemed most apt in the particular circumstances.
In a number of cases evidence received in camera, particularly from
government departments, has appeared to the Commission to have been
'overclassified'. In several such instances the permission of the
witness (e.g. department) has been received to declassify the evidence. In other instances the Commission has, after reflection, decided that no good purpose would be served by withholding publication. As a broad
A25
p r inciple it must be accepted that witnesses giving evidence to the
Commission, wh e t h e r it is confidential or not, give it in the hope or
expectation that the Commission will act upon it. It has seemed
reasonable to the Commission, t h e r e f o r e , that it should not allow good
evidence to be rendered useless by observing an undue scrupulosity with
regard to its confidentiality, provided always that witnesses are given adequate pro t e c t i o n and the requirements of national security are
h o n o u r e d .
Quotations from E v idence
Where in this Report the official transcript of evidence is quoted
or referred to, the transcript page is quoted with the pr e f i x 'OT'
(designating 'open' t r a n s c r i p t ) . In the instances in which the
confidential transcript has been quoted, the letters 'CT' appear.
Computer Methods
The Commission had available to it a sophisticated computer-based
information storage and retrieval system. The whole of the transcript
of evidence was p rogressively input into the system by means of
typewriter-like keyboards located in the Commission's Brisbane office. The information was stored in the computer, where it was amenable to
systematic search and retrieval w h e n the Commission's legal staff or
researchers wished to reference the transcript for evidence on a
p a r t icular topic or in relation to a p a r ticular person.
The ADP system provided a fast, accurate and comprehensive means of
extracting from the computer data base material relevant to particular aspects of the Terms of Reference as they were being dealt with in the
Report preparation. It saved the Commission the need to establish
extensive manual indexes to reference information.
As sections of the Commission's Report were prepared in draft form,
they too were input into the computer. The computer system greatly
facilitated the editing and refinement of the Report text. When the
Report is finally complete, the computer will provide an output magnetic tape of the Report w h i c h in turn w i l l be capable of input directly into
the Government Printer's computer typesetting system. This arrangement not only renders it unnecessary for the printing office to undertake
much of the labour-intensive typesetting w o r k n o rmally involved in the preparatory stages of the printing task, but appreciably reduces the
'lead t i m e ' involved in the total printing process.
At the time w h e n the system was being initially studied, an attempt
was made to assess its likely costs and benefits. The results obtained
at that time encouraged the Commission to proceed with the
implementation of the system. It is intended that a cost-benefit study
will be undertaken at the conclusion of the Commission to review the
results actually achieved.
A26
On the basis of its experience to date the Commission b elieves that
the system has been of immense benefit; i n d e e d , it is considered
doubtful whether the very large amount of information received could
have b e e n effectively handled without some such system.
The Narcotics Bureau
On 6 November 1979 the Deputy Prime Min i s t e r announced to the House
of Representatives that the Government had accepted the recommendations of this Commission's Interim Report (with one exception) and had decided to disband the Narcotics Bureau. A t this date of wr i t i n g it has been
disbanded. M u c h of the Report had been written prior to such
disbanding. In some instances reference has been made to that fact---in
others the Report has been presented in its original form. The
Commission's recommendations regarding the Narcotics Bureau are the same as those in the Interim Report.
Commission's E x istence not to Inhibit Action
W h e n the Commission commenced taking evidence on 17 N o vember 1977,
it was apparent that considerable time would elapse before it could make firm recommendations relevant to any of its Terms of R e f e r e n c e . Not
w ishing the existence of the Commission to inhibit any department or
body in the taking of any steps or implementing any legislation or
procedures then thought by such department or body to be appropriate,
the Commission on a number of occasions in public session and by letter
to two federal department h e a d s , stated it did not wish to inhibit such
a course. The Commission at the same time made it clear that the taking
of any such steps would not inhibit it from recommending a reversal or
var i a t i o n if such was thought a p p r o p r i a t e .
Duplication
The magnitude of the issues dealt wi t h by the Report have made it
necessary, for the sake of comprehension, to repeat material under
various distinct headings.
Recommendations
When the Commission has determined to make a particular
recommendation it has be e n found desirable to make it in close p r oximity to its dealing w i t h the relevant evidence and the conclusions to which
it is related. General recommendations are made in Part X I V of the
Report. For ease of reference all recommendations have b e e n collected
at the end of the Report. The place on the list which a recommendation
occupies is not meant as an indication of its importance relative to
other recommendations. Recommendations are numbered in the order in
w h i c h they appear in the Report.
The Commission not a Law Enforcement Agency
The Terms of Reference do not require the Commission to name any
person as a person involved in drug t r a f f i c k i n g . The Commission
A27
received in evidence a considerable body of evidence naming particular persons in this connection or referring to matters from which particular persons could be identified. The Commission did not see itself and
still does not see itself as an organisation with a law enforcement
role. Its Terms of Reference require it to examine the methods used in
trafficking, the extent of illegal u s e , the effectiveness of law
enforcement a g e n c i e s , etc.
Mu c h of the information was received in a form from which no
conclusion could be drawn without the assistance of further
investigation or of comment from a law enforcement agency. The
Commission adopted the practice of referring these matters to agencies for their comment or for a r e p o r t . In the course of time the Commission
received many helpful reports from officers of the Narcotics Bureau and State police forces in response to questions by the Commission of this
k i n d . The matter of investigatory assistance has already been dealt
with in this C h a p t e r .
Seeing itself as concerned with the adequacy of present laws and
present systems and without a direct law enforcement role the Commission was at all times careful to avoid embarrassing in any w a y the proper
functioning of the criminal justice system. In the case of doubt the
Commission took evidence in camera rather than in public so that no
person was publicly accused when it might be difficult for him to defend
himself and so that the fairness of criminal trials was not prejudiced.
T h i s , unfortunately for those who relish sensations and s c a n d a l , carries over into this Report.
Buddha or Thai Sticks
These terms recurred throughout the evidence on innumerable
occasions. The Commission appreciates that the use of these terms may
cause concern on a religious or national basis but due to the frequency
with wh i c h the terms were used in evidence, felt impelled to adopt the
terminology.
Acknowledgments
It is obvious that an Inquiry of the magnitude of these five
Commissions and the writing of this Report could not be undertaken
without the dedicated assistance and co-operation of ma n y people,
departments and organisations in Australia and overseas. To enumerate all here would be a m ammoth task further delaying the presentation of
this Report. The Royal Commissioner takes this opportunity of
expressing his thanks and gratitude to all who contributed.
A28
P a r t II
Drugs o f Abuse and their E ffects
Part II Drugs of Abuse and their Effects
C h a p t e r 1.
C h a p t e r 2.
C h a p t e r 3.
C h a p t e r 4.
C h a p t e r 5.
C h a p t e r 6.
C h a p t e r 7.
C h a p t e r 8.
C h a p t e r 9.
A l c o h o l
N i c o t i n e
A n a l g e s i c s
C e n t r a l N e r v o u s S y s t e m S t i m u l a n t s
C e n t r a l N e r v o u s S y s t e m D e p r e s s a n t s
N a r c o t i c s --- O p i a t e s a n d S y n t h e t i c O p i a t e s
C a n n a b i s
H a l l u c i n o g e n s
V o l a t i l e S o l v e n t s
T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e d e f i n e a 'drug' as
a n a r c o t i c o r p s y c h o t r o p i c s u b s t a n c e , i n c l u d i n g e v e r y d r u g
o r s u b s t a n c e s p e c i f i e d in a n y o f t h e s c h e d u l e s to t h e S i n g l e
C o n v e n t i o n on N a r c o t i c D r u g s or to t h e C o n v e n t i o n on P s y c h o Â
t r o p i c S u b s t a n c e s . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n e n c o m p a s s e s h u n d r e d s o f
d i f f e r e n t s u b s t a n c e s a n d t h e r e w o u l d b e no p r o f i t in c o n Â
s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t i e s a n d e f f e c t s o f e v e r y s u c h s u b s t a n c e .
On th e o t h e r h a n d , it s e e m s v e r y d e s i r a b l e in the R e p o r t o f
t h i s R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n o f I n q u i r y i n t o D r u g s t h a t t h e r e be
p r o v i d e d f o r th e r e a d e r , in an e a r l y p a r t o f the R e p o r t , a
s u f f i c i e n t d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o p e r t i e s a n d e f f e c t s o f the
d r u g s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d in e v i d e n c e b e f o r e th e
C o m m i s s i o n .
Th e d e f i n i t i o n o f 'drug' in the T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e
e n c o m p a s s e s a n y n a r c o t i c or p s y c h o t r o p i c s u b s t a n c e , e v e n if
it is n o t i n c l u d e d in the s c h e d u l e s to the two C o n v e n t i o n s .
A d r u g c o u l d be d e f i n e d as a c h e m i c a l s u b s t a n c e w h i c h a l t e r s
t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h e body. It is i m m a t e r i a l w h e t h e r th e s u b Â
s t a n c e o c c u r s in t h a t f o r m in n a t u r e or w h e t h e r it h a s to be
m a n u f a c t u r e d .
M a n h a s u s e d d r u g s o v e r th e c e n t u r i e s to a l t e r the
f u n c t i o n o f t h e b o d y , to c u r e s i c k n e s s , or f o r r e l i g i o u s or
c u l t u r a l r e a s o n s . D r u g s u s e d f o r r e l i g i o u s o r c u l t u r a l
r e a s o n s s t i m u l a t e o r s e d a t e the b o d y an d m i n d o r c a u s e
h a l l u c i n a t o r y c h a n g e s in m a n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s . All d r u g s w h i c h
a f f e c t t h e m i n d o r m o o d in t h i s w a y a r e p s y c h o t r o p i c s u b Â
s t a n c e s . Tea a n d c o f f e e c o n t a i n t h e m i l d s t i m u l a n t c a f f e i n e ,
so t h e s e b e v e r a g e s c o u l d be d e f i n e d as p s y c h o t r o p i c dru g s .
A29
T h e r e a r e s o m e d r u g s , w h i c h m i g h t b e t e r m e d ' t r a d i t i o n a l
d r u g s ' , t h a t m a n h a s u s e d f o r h u n d r e d s o f y e a r s . U s u a l l y
t h e s e a r e o b t a i n e d f r o m p l a n t s k n o w n to h a v e s p e c i a l h e a l i n g
p r o p e r t i e s . O t h e r m o d e r n d r u g s w h i c h h a v e a n a t u r a l o r i g i n
h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d b y t e s t i n g s u b s t a n c e s w h i c h o c c u r in
n a t u r e , e . g . , m a r i n e o r g a n i s m s o r f u n g i . O t h e r d r u g s u s e d
t h e s e d a y s h a v e b e e n d e l i b e r a t e l y m a n u f a c t u r e d in a l a b o r a Â
t o r y f r o m o t h e r c h e m i c a l s a n d c a n b e d e s c r i b e d as 's y n t h e t i c
d r u g s '.
B e f o r e a n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d d r u g is a p p r o v e d f o r m e d i c a l use
m a n y t e s t s a r e p e r f o r m e d , a n d t h o u s a n d s m o r e n e w d r u g s fail
t h i s e v a l u a t i o n t h a n p a s s it. The n u m b e r o f n e w d r u g s
r e l e a s e d a n n u a l l y f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d u s e in m o d e r n m e d i c i n e
is c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l . N o t o n l y m u s t t h e y b e s h o w n to h a v e
th e d e s i r e d r e s u l t , b u t t h e y a l s o m u s t b e s h o w n to h a v e no
h a r m f u l s i d e - e f f e e t s .
In a d d i t i o n to t h e us e o f d r u g s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l p u r p o s e s
a n d in m e d i c i n e , d r u g s a r e u s e d f o r s o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l
r e a s o n s . T h e d r u g w i t h w h i c h E u r o p e a n c i v i l i s a t i o n h a s b e e n
l o n g e s t a c q u a i n t e d is a l c o h o l , o r i g i n a l l y t a k e n in w i n e , b e e r ,
o r m e a d , a n d l a t e r in d i s t i l l e d b e v e r a g e s . It w a s n o t u n t i l
t h e 1 7 t h c e n t u r y t h a t t o b a c c o , a d r u g a l i e n to E u r o p e a n
c u l t u r e , w a s a c c e p t e d in E u r o p e . A l c o h o l a n d n i c o t i n e a r e
c o n s i d e r e d in t h i s P a r t o f th e R e p o r t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e the
b e s t k n o w n d r u g s o f a b u s e i n A u s t r a l i a t o d a y a n d m a n y w i t n e s s e s
in d i s c u s s i n g o t h e r d r u g s r e f e r r e d to a l c o h o l a n d t o b a c c o to
i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r e v i d e n c e .
The t e r m ' d r u g o f a b u s e ' t h e r e f o r e e m b r a c e s a w i d e r a n g e
o f d r u g s w h i c h a r e u s e d a n d a b u s e d f o r m a n y d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s .
' A b u s e ' i n t h i s c o n t e x t is e x c e s s i v e d r u g us e i n c o n s i s t e n t
w i t h o r u n r e l a t e d to a c c e p t a b l e m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e . T h i s P a r t
o f t h e R e p o r t e x a m i n e s th e n a t u r e o f th e d r u g s o f a b u s e m o s t
f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d in e v i d e n c e a n d t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e s e
d r u g s . S o m e e x p l a n a t i o n is n e e d e d o f t h e t e r m i n o l o g y u s e d In
t h e f o l l o w i n g C h a p t e r s a n d t h i s is se t o u t b e l o w .
C o m p u l s i v e d r u g u s e i n d i c a t e s the u s e r ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n
w i t h the u s e o f a g i v e n drug.
T o l e r a n c e o c c u r s w h e n , a f t e r r e p e a t e d d o s e s o f a d r u g , a
g i v e n d o s e p r o d u c e s d e c r e a s i n g e f f e c t s , o r w h e n i n c r e a s i n g
d r u g d o s e s a r e r e q u i r e d to p r o d u c e a c o n s t a n t e f f e c t .
P s y c h o l o g i c a l d e p e n d e n c e o r h a b i t u a t i o n r e f e r s to t h e
n e e d f e l t b y s o m e i n d i v i d u a l s to c o n t i n u e to us e a g i v e n d r u g
in o r d e r to m a i n t a i n an o p t i m u m s t a t e o f h e a l t h a n d w e l l - b e i n g .
A30
P h y s i c a l d e p e n d e n c e on a d r u g i m p l i e s tha t , a f t e r
r e p e a t e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , c h a n g e s in th e b o d y ' s r e s p o n s e s
to t h e d r u g h a v e o c c u r r e d s u c h t h a t t h e b o d y is u n a b l e
to f u n c t i o n a d e q u a t e l y w i t h o u t th e d r u g . If the d r u g is
t h e n w i t h d r a w n , th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c w i t h d r a w a l or a b s t i n e n c e
s y n d r o m e o c c u r s .
D r u g a d d i c t i o n is d e f i n e d h e r e to m e a n a s t a t e in
w h i c h a p e r s o n h a s an o v e r w h e l m i n g n e e d to p r o c u r e a n d use a
g i v e n d r u g , c h r o n i c a l l y o r s p a s m o d i c a l l y , a n d d e v e l o p s a
p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the us e o f th e d r u g . I f w i t h d r a w a l is
a c h i e v e d , t h e n the r e l a p s e r a t e is h i g h .
A31
A3 2
Chapter 1 Alcohol
ETHYL ALCOHOL
EthyL alcohol (or simply, alcohol) is the active component in beverages such as beer, wine and spirits. The use of alcoholic drinks has been
recorded since ancient tim e s , and in the past alcohol was frequently
accorded a therapeutic v a l u e . Now it is used mainly for its social
effects .
Alcohol is taken orally. It is rapidly absorbed from the stomach
and small intestine but the rate of absorption is slowed by such factors
as the presence of food in the stomach (fatty foods and milk are
especially useful), time taken to ingest the drink, and dilution of the
alcoholic beve r a g e . After it has been absorbed from the gastroÂ
intestinal tract, alcohol is widely distributed throughout body tissues. Most of the alcohol is then gradually broken down into other substances, liberating energy in much the same way as sugars do. Only a very small
amount of alcohol is excreted unchanged in the u r i n e . This phenomenon
explains why any attempt to increase urine flow in order to reduce the
amount of body alcohol in intoxicated victims is rather unsuccessful.
A blood alcohol concentration in excess of 50 milligrams of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of blood will usually be associated with effects
such as delayed reaction time. Severe intoxication will be associated
with blood alcohol levels in excess of 150 mg/100 ml in many cas e s .
Repeated ingestion of alcohol exerts changes in many parts of the
body. Some liver enzymes become 'induced', i .e ., the enzyme systems are enhanced and this can result in an increased ability of the liver to
break down other drugs quickly. Repeated ingestion also leads to
âtolerance', i . e ., larger amounts are required to produce the same
effects. Physical dependence on alcohol occurs when high blood alcohol concentrations have been maintained for some considerable time.
Effects of Ethyl Alcohol
Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant drug. It has its
first actions on the nervous system and begins by depressing those areas of the brain which are concerned with highly integrated functions. At
first, light-headedness and euphoria may be present, and inhibitions are relaxed.
Acute Intoxication
As alcohol ingestion continues (and consequently the blood alcohol level rises), thinking processes become jumbled and insight becomes
dulled. Motor performance is usually impaired. Swings in emotion may
be apparent. Further depression of the central nervous system occurs,
and unconsciousness ensues. While alcoholic coma can usually be 'slept o f f â it can sometimes be associated with a severe depression of
A33
respiration, and death may follow unless proper r esuscitatjve treatment is instituted.
Alcohol also stimulates urine flow. It causes increased sweating
and dilation of bl o o d vessels, e s p ecially those in the skin, and results
in a warm, flushed appearance. Loss of inhibition m a y be associated
with aggressive b e h a v i o u r . Sexual p e r f ormance is us u a l l y inhibited
rather than enhanced.
The p o s t - a lcoholic state, or 'hangover', is a self-limiting
condition following excessive alcohol indulgence. The usual symptoms
include h e a d a c h e , n a u s e a , vomiting, tremor, nervousness and difficulty in thinking.
Chronic Intoxication
Chronic alcohol ingestion affects p r a c t i c a l l y every body system.
The neurological m a nifestations of chronic a l c oholism are
widespread. Acute intoxication and the abstinence syndromes are
mentioned elsewhere in this C h a p t e r . Ma n y neurological syndromes in
alcoholics are due to a deficient diet, e s p ecially with respect to
vitamins, m i n e r a l s , etc. When thiamine (vitamin Bl) is deficient a
syndrome of inco-ordination, confusion, and disturbance of ocular
movements may ensue. Another neurological disorder which frequently
occurs is damage to the long nerves of the hands and feet. This
manifests itself as a loss of sensation in the hands and feet. Loss of
vision due to the toxic effects of alcohol on the optic nerves may
occur. Loss of nerve cells in the brain can result in a deficient
memory. At a utopsy the brain may appear to be s h r u n k e n . This loss of
nerve cells due to excessive alcohol intake can also s e l e ctively affect
the cerebellum and br a i n stem resulting in severe i n co-ordination and an unsteady gait.
As well as these direct toxic effects of alcohol on the nervous
system, secondary damage may occur. Because of the frequently
intoxicated state head injuries are common. Head trauma m a y cause
fractures of the skull, head lacerations and blood clots on the surface
of the brain. F r equent head injuries p r e dispose a person to secondary
epilepsy.
Alcohol is a 'food' that supplies energy but contains no vitamins.
It therefore can result in obesity but at the same time causes
nutritional deficiency.
Early morning nausea and vomiting are frequent features in chronic
alcoholics. Inflammation of the wall of the stomach o c c u r s . There is
an increased incidence of peptic ulcers.
A34
Acute and chronic pancreatitis are more common in the chronic
alcohol drinker. Damage to the pancreas and its secretions then causes
difficulties w i t h the absorption of dietary fat and the fat-soluble
vitamins (A, D , E and K).
E v e n moderate quantities of alcohol ma y be associated with an
enhanced deposition of fat in the liver. Excessive amounts predispose a person to alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and consequent failure of the liver to function adequately. This m a y result in hepatic coma and
death.
Severe haemorrhage from the gastro-intestinal tract can present
either as v omiting of blood or the passage of blood from the b o w e l . The
haemorrhage frequently develops from the inflammation or ulcer of the
stomach or from enlarged varicose veins in the upper pa r t of the stomach
and around the lower part of the oesophagus in some patients who have
cirrhosis of the liver. Such haemorrhage can be catastrophic and can
quickly result in death.
A n association b etween chronic excessive alcohol ingestion and
damage to the heart muscle has be e n well d o c u m e n t e d . Adult males are
us u a l l y affected. The heart becomes enlarged and is unable to pump
adequately. Heart failure follows. There is often an associated
irregularity and often rapidity of the heart beat. Occasionally, this
cardiomyopathy is due to thiamine dietary deficiency and can be treated. More often, the damage is i r r e v e r s i b l e .
Toxic damage to skeletal muscle ma y o c c u r . It can involve any
muscles but especially those of the upper arm and upper leg. It is
associated wi t h pain, tenderness and weakness in the involved muscles.
Because of multiple factors including poor diet, poor living
conditions, the often associated occurrence of smoking, and impaired
defence mechanisms of the immunity system, the alcoholic suffers an
increased incidence and severity of i n f e c t i o n s , especially bronchitis and p n e u m o n i a . Furthermore, trauma and 'brawls' result in further
i n j u r i e s , including rib fractures and sometimes p e r f oration of a lung
resulting in a pneumothorax.
Changes can occur in the blood p l a t e l e t s , red blood cells, and the
bone marrow in a l c o h o l i c s . Usually, these are not of great clinical
significance. However, changes in the white blood cells occur which may be partially responsible for the decreased resistance of alcoholics to i n f e c t i o n s .
The social effects of chronic alcohol excess are numerous and cannot be adequately r e c o u n t e d . Domestic upheavals, marital stress, divorce, damage to children (both physical and mental), and unemployment are but a few to be considered.
A35
Withdrawal (or Abstinence) Syndromes
The abstinence syndromes occur in various d egrees of severity
according to the amount and duration of alcohol ingestion. The more
severe syndromes occur after heavy regular d rinking for at least one
month and usually longer.
Af t e r 'sobering up' the alcoholic is a l e r t , i r r i t a b l e , on e d g e , and
sleepless. He of t e n will have 'the shakes' or 'the jitters' and needs a
drink to 'quiet his nerves'. Hal l u c i n a t i o n s may follow, and these may
be visual or auditory. At this stage the p atient is not agitated and
has some insight into the unreality of the hallucinations.
Ma j o r epileptic seizures or 'rum fits' may occur about 48 hours
after alcohol intake has ceased.
D e lirium Tremens ('D T 's ') is the most dangerous and severe type of
alcoholic withdrawal and is fatal in 10â 15% of cases wh e r e it occurs.
It is characterized by confusion, hallucinations, t r e m o r , agitation, disorientation and s l e e p l e s s n e s s . The heart and resp i r a t o r y rates are
increased and sweating is profuse. The 'D T 's ' occurs 3--4 days after
cessation of alcohol. It terminates 3 â 5 days later after sleep when
the patient again becomes l u c i d . The patient recalls little of events
during the episode.
METHYL ALCOHOL
Methyl alcohol is a simple alcohol which is w i d e l y employed as an
industrial solvent. It is also a constituent of m e t h y l a t e d spirits.
Methyl alcohol is absorbed quickly and becomes wid e l y distributed
throughout the body. It is slowly broken down in the body to formic
acid and formaldehyde. A small amount only is excreted unchanged in the
u r i n e .
Poisoning with this drug results from ingestion of 'metho', i . e . ,
m e t hylated spirits, as a substitute for ethyl alcohol. It is therefore
seen in only the most hardened alcoholics. The effects of this agent
include severe central nervous system d e p r ession (as for ethyl alcohol), acidosis due to the breakdown products of methyl alcohol, and severe
direct toxicity to the retinal cells of the eye resulting in blindness.
The clinical features seen in cases of methyl alcohol poisoning
include headache, dizziness, confusion, irritability, cold e x t r e m i t i e s , blurring of vision and blindness, and slowing of the pulse rate. Coma
and death may follow. The ingestion of 70--100 ml of methyl alcohol is
frequently fatal.
A36
Chapter 2 Nicotine
Nicotine is a natural liquid alkaloid found in tobacco. On exposure to
air it develops the characteristic odour of tobacco. The pure alkaloid
is a very potent poison and, as such, is incorporated in some
insecticides. Approximately 50 mg of nicotine is a lethal adult dose.
Nicotine is quickly absorbed from the gastro-intestinal tract, the
respiratory tract, and also from the skin. The liver handles most of
the nicotine and detoxifies it. The break-down products and the
unchanged nicotine are excreted in the u r i n e . Nicotine is also excreted
in the breast milk of lactating mothers who smoke tobacco. The effects
of nicotine in the body are unpredictable as it produces a stimulant
phase and a depressant phase of activity. Nicotine initially stimulates the central nervous system producing tremor and, in higher dosage,
convulsions. Enhanced respiratory rate is also apparent. The
depressant phase follows and there may be failure of respiration and
death. Vomiting occ u r s , and this is due to both central effects on the
brain and to peripheral actions on nerves supplying the stomach.
Acute Nicotine Poisoning
Poisoning may occur after the accidental oral ingestion of
insecticides, especially in children. However, cigarettes contain
considerable amounts of nicotine, some as much as 20--30 mg per
cigarette. If these are chewed, a moderate dose of nicotine is
ingested. Fortunately, oral absorption of nicotine from tobacco is
delayed and vomiting occurs early. The symptoms of small doses of
nicotine include nausea and vomiting, headache, increased respiratory rate, sweating, diarrhoea and a rapid pulse rat e . With higher doses the
effects become more severe and include confusion, faintness, a fall in
blood pressure and convulsions. Death may occur from paralysis of the
respiratory muscles.
Chronic Nicotine/Tobacco Poisoning
Tobacco, either smoked, chewed or sniffed (i.e ., as snuff), is used
by millions of people. Fortunately, when tobacco is burned most of the
nicotine is burned. The amount of nicotine absorbed from tobacco smoke
depends on many factors, including the brand of tobacco and the smoking
habits of the person, particularly the degree of inhalation of the
smoke. More nicotine is absorbed from humid than from dry tobacco. The
rate of burning of tobacco and the temperature of the smoke can be
altered by the smoker and these are additional factors which determine
the amount of nicotine absorbed. About 80% of the nicotine present in
tobacco smoke is absorbed in the lungs. The inhalation of smoke from
one cigarette results in the absorption of about 3 mg of nicotine.
It is generally believed that cigar and pipe smokers incur less risk
than smokers of cigarettes. This is likely if cigar and pipe smokers do
not inhale. However, high temperatures in the stem of a pipe may be
important in the production of tar substances likely to produce cancer
of the mouth and lip.
Chronic obstructive airways disease is more common in cigarette
smokers than in n o n - s m o k e r s . This group of disorders includes chronic
bronchitis and e m p h y s e m a . The features of chronic bronchitis are
chronic cough and excessive sputum production. These symptoms persist
for months or years. Emphysema is characterized b y d e s t ruction of the
lung air cells and results in larger and less functional airspaces in
the l u n g s . The essential symptom is shortness of b r e a t h . S o m e t i m e s ,
chronic bronchitis and emphysema ma y occur together.
Effects of Smoking on the Respiratory System
Effects of Smoking on the Cardiovascular System
Smoking induces an increase in the heart rate and blood p ressure and
predisposes a pe r s o n to irregularities of the heart r h y t h m . The force
of heart contractions is enhanced and there is also increased blood flow
to the heart in pe o p l e wi t h normal coronary a r t e r i e s . However, it is
felt that the coronary blood flow is not increased in those with
diseased arteries and that this represents a risk wh e n heart wo r k is
increased by the effects of nicotine. T h i ckening and 'hardening' of the
arteries is increased in smokers when compared with n o n - s m o k e r s .
Overall, it has been concluded that smoking s ignificantly increases coronary artery disease. Studies have shown that the m o r t a l i t y rate of
heavy smokers between 35 and 44 years old is five times that of n o n Â
smokers in the same age group. The difference becomes insignificant in
subjects over the age of 55 years. Smoking increases the risk of
angina. It is, therefore, especially important that people wi t h high
blood p r e s s u r e , hi g h blood fats, and c o ronary artery disease should be
encouraged not to smoke cigarettes.
Effects of Smoking in Pregnancy
Infants of mothers who smoke have a significantly lower birth weight than babies born to non-smoking mothers. It has not been proved that
there are significant changes in the intellectual capacity of these
children resulting from their mothers' smoking h a b i t s . However, there
is an increased risk of stillbirths and of deaths in the n ewborn period
in babies of smoking mothers when compared with those of non-smoking
m o t h e r s . While cigarette smoke contains cancer-producing chemicals
there is no evidence to prove that these agents cause malformations in
the unborn infants of smoking m o t h e r s .
Cancer and Smoking
Cancer of the lip is relatively common in those who continually hold
a cigarette in their mo u t h and in those who smoke a pipe or use a
cigarette holder. Those who chew tobacco ma y also develop mouth cancer, especially of the gums and c h e e k s .
While it may not be the only factor, the evidence that tobacco smoke
is a major factor in the development of lung cancer is overwhelming. In
countries where the incidence of lung cancer has been studied the
increasing incidence of lung cancer parallels the increasing use of
cigarettes. F u r t h e r m o r e , cancer of the lung was uncommon in wo m e n until recent times when more women have commenced smoking. The risks of
developing lung cancer are greater the younger a person commences to
smoke and the longer the smoking habit c o n t i n u e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , people
who smoke tobacco and drink alcohol seem to have an even higher risk of
developing cancer of the lung or of the mouth, larynx and lips. If a
smoker ceases the habit then the risk of developing a cancer s u b s i d e s .
After a period of time has passed the incidence of lung cancer in n o n Â
smokers and former smokers becomes similar.
A39
A40
Chapter 3 Analgesics
This chapter on non-narcotic analgesics deals with:
* salicylates,
* phenacetin and paracetamol, and
* analgesic combinations.
All of this group of drugs can be used as analgesics for pain relief,
and most have the additional effect of being anti-pyretic (i.e., they
reduce fever).
SALICYLATES
Aspirin (or acetylsalicylic acid) and sodium salicylate are the two most commonly employed salicylate analgesics. Salicylates are usually taken orally. They are rapidly absorbed from the stomach and upper
small intestine, the peak level in the body being found 1--2 hours after
ingestion. Rapid distribution occurs throughout the body. These
substances can also cross the placental barrier and gain access into the foetal circulation. Much of the absorbed aspirin is converted to
salicylic acid, also an active analgesic. Further breakdown of
salicylates occurs in the liver and the metabolites are excreted via the kidney. The duration of action of a single dose of aspirin is quite
short while that of salicylate is rather longer.
Effects on the Body of Therapeutic Doses
Pain of slight to moderate severity can be amenable to salicylate
therapy, and this effect occurs as a result of drug action on the brain
and at peripheral sites. Salicylates also lower body temperature in
febrile patients. There is no effect on temperature when body
temperature is normal. Anti-inflammatory effects are seen, making this a useful group of drugs for the rheumatic disorders. The respiratory
rate can initially be stimulated. There are quite definite alterations in the acid--base balance, affecting the blood pH. Usually, these
changes are easily compensated. Nausea, vomiting and upper abdominal
pain can follow the ingestion of salicylates, and there can be
exacerbation of peptic ulcers. Haemorrhage may be provoked from the
upper gastro-intestinal tract. Sometimes such blood loss is
insignificant, at other times anaemia may follow or catastrophic
haemorrhage ensue. The blood platelets are altered by salicylate
ingestion, and this results in a prolongation of the bleeding time.
Such an effect from one dose of aspirin may last for up to 7 days.
Hypersensitivity to salicylates, usually presenting with skin rash, may occasionally be seen after even a small dose of salicylate. This
occurs more commonly in people with allergic disease, especially those with asthma. Chronic high-dose salicylate therapy in pregnant women
(e.g., for those with rheumatoid arthritis) increases the duration of
A41
p r egnancy and prolongs labour. There is no proven evidence that aspirin
causes teratogenic effects in h u m a n s .
Salicylate Intoxication
The early features of salicylate intoxication include headache,
ringing in the e a r s , dizziness, confusion, rapid b r e a t h i n g , sweating and nausea. More severe intoxication has these effects, but m a n y people
also show skin eruptions, euphoria, incoherent speech, tremor,
hallucinations, convulsions and even coma and death. Features of a
b l eeding tendency (bruising) may be seen. There may be serious effects
encountered from alterations in the acid--base balance. Salicylate
intoxication is very dangerous in children.
The fatal dose of salicylate varies w i t h the type of preparation.
However, 10--30 g of a spirin may be lethal in adults though sometimes
very high doses have not caused death. Salicylate poi s o n i n g requires
urgent medical t r e a t m e n t .
PHENACETIN AND PARACETAMOL
These drugs have similar p a i n - r e l i e v i n g qualities to those of
aspirin. Phenacetin has some direct pharmacological actions. Its major breakdown product is paracetamol, an effective analgesic.
Both drugs are absorbed quickly from the upper gastro-intestinal
tract and attain a peak blood concentration in about 1 hour. After
distribution throughout the body fluids, these drugs are broken down in
the liver and then excreted in the u r i n e . In patients wi t h abnormal
kidney function an accumulation of the bre a k d o w n products can occur.
Effects on the Body
These drugs relieve pa i n of mild to moderate severity. Fe v e r is
r e d u c e d . Subjective feelings of e u p h o r i a , relaxation, lightheadedness and a mild sense of detachment can o c c u r . Skin rash and allergic
reactions may occasionally develop.
Acute overdosage may produce acute and sometimes fatal liver
d a m a g e , the severity of wh i c h is related to the total dose. A dose of
25 g or more of paracetamol may be f a t a l . The severity of the liver
damage can result in liver failure, and then disturbances of brain
function, coma and d e a t h . Similarly, overdosage may cause significant acute kidney damage. Rupture of the red bl o o d cells resulting in
anaemia is another consequence of excessive ingestion of this group of
drugs. Chronic renal impairment is discussed in the next section.
A42
ANALGESIC COMBINATIONS AND POWDERS
Many analgesic preparations available without prescription are
marketed. These include various combinations of aspirin, paracetamol or caffeine, codeine, sedatives and other substances. It might be
reasonably claimed that the addition of codeine to the salicylate
analgesic or to paracetamol offers additional analgesic benefit but the combination aspirin--paracetamol--caffeine has not been proved to be
significantly more effective than aspirin alone. The caffeine content of such medication is frequently less than the amount of caffeine in one
cup of coffee (about 100 mg).
The reasons why so many analgesic preparations are ingested without medical supervision are nume r o u s . They include minor pain states, such as headache and backache. However, they are also taken by some as a
habit to produce the pleasant effects of euphoria and relaxation which
may accompany some of the components.
The association between kidney damage (analgesic nephropathy) and excessive ingestion of analgesic compounds has been noted for more than 20 years. This affects females more than males. While phenacetin has
been implicated it is likely that the other analgesics may also be
involved. F u r t h e r m o r e , there is marked geographical variation in the
incidence of analgesic nephropathy. It has been suggested that
dehydration may be a provoking factor, as may infection of the urinary
tract. Genetically determined differences in responses to drugs may
also alter the incidence of renal impairment. S o m e , though not all,
patients who ingest analgesic mixtures for long periods (often many
years) develop impairment of kidney function. This may lead on to renal
fa i l u r e . Excessive excretion of body salt, along with hypertension and vascular disease, often complicates this problem. Death may occur. It
is therefore of paramount importance that where possible no one should
take any analgesic d r u g s , either singly or in combinations, in large
amounts for long periods of time.
A43
A44
Chapter 4 Central Nervous System Stimulants
Many drugs are capable of stimulating the central nervous system,
causing increased alertness and mental activity and frequently
increasing muscular activity as well. Some of these drugs may cause
convulsions and hence are also known as analeptics. The drugs grouped
here are not related to each other and generally act in different ways
and at different sites of the nervous system.
The compounds to be discussed include:
* cocaine;
* amphetamine, dexamphetamine, methamphetamine, and ephedrine;
* methylphenidate (Ritalin);
* xanthines --- caffeine, theobromine;
* appetite suppressant drugs.
COCAINE
Cocaine is a naturally occurring alkaloid which is a potent local
anaesthetic. It is derived from the leaves of the coca plant which is
native to South America. Coca leaves have been chewed by South American
Indians for centuries. However, the cocaine content of the leaves is
only about 0.5â 1.0%. Pure cocaine was isolated in the 1880s and its
local anaesthetic effects and its stimulant effects were noted.
Cocaine can be absorbed via many routes. These include oral
ingestion, skin application, direct absorption from mucous membranes, and intravenous, subcutaneous and intra-muscular injections. The
application of cocaine to the skin causes local irritation. It also
results in constriction of the blood vessels, and this may slow
absorption. However, the oral route is the least effective because the
cocaine is broken down in the upper gastro-intestinal tract. The liver
metabolises cocaine absorbed into the body but at a rate which may not
exceed the absorption rate of a large dose, and high toxic
concentrations of cocaine are then achieved.
Effects on the Body
The effects of cocaine are as follows:
Local application of cocaine blocks nerve conduction and results in local anaesthesia. This drug was once used widely to produce
anaesthesia of the eye for surgical procedures. However it has now been
replaced by less toxic agents.
A45
Cocaine initially stimulates the brain cortex (the grey matter)
resulting in euphoria and e x c i t e m e n t . Mental activity is increased, and there is e l evation of mood and a sense of well-being. P r obably because
feelings of lethargy are d e c r e a s e d , there is an increase in physical and muscular activity. As the cocaine dose is increased other areas of the
nervous system are affected. Eventually, convulsions may o c c u r .
Vomiting and nausea are frequent. Dep r e s s i o n of respiratory centres may result in rapid and shallow breathing, and respiratory failure may
result in death.
Small doses of cocaine slow the heart r a t e ; larger doses increase
it. Blood p r essure may be increased until the final stages of severe
intoxication, when it falls. A larger intravenous cocaine dose may
cause damage to the heart and immediate death. Local application
constricts bl o o d vessels and therefore reduces local bleeding during
surgical o p e r a t i o n s .
Cocaine potentiates the effects of adrenaline and related
s u b s t a n c e s .
Acute Cocaine Poisoning
An acute overdose of cocaine causes anxiety, confusion, fast pulse
rate, chill, nausea and vomiting. Respiration becomes rapid, then
depressed. Convulsions and unconsciousness o c c u r . Death occurs from
respiratory arrest. The fatal outcome from cocaine toxicity is r a p i d ,
and frequently the subject dies in less than 5 hours following intake of
the drug. Sudden death from intravenous injection of cocaine may be
caused by impurities in 1 s t r e e t ' p r e p a r a t i o n s .
Tolerance and Addiction
Cocaine is a drug of addiction, its euphoriant effect leading to its
abuse. 'Snorting' (sniffing) is a method of absorbing cocaine via the
mucous membrane of the nose. With this method of administration the
user experiences about half an hour of e u p h o r i a , and generally there are no after-effects or complications from a single dose. However, overdose can result from repeated 's n o r t i n g â , and agitation and paranoia occur.
Intravenous injection of cocaine causes a 'rush' of euphoria and the effects last for a few minutes only. Drug combinations are sometimes
u s e d---for example, a mixture of cocaine and heroin is termed a
's p e e d b a l l '. Frequently, the substances injected are impure and the
impurities may themselves add to the medical c o m p l i c a t i o n s . Repeated
injections of cocaine result in agitation, impaired concentration,
paranoia and hallucinations. Tactile hallucinations, or 'cocaine bugs', are common.
Psychological dependence on cocaine o c c u r s . On cessation of cocaine use depression ma y follow, but there is no withdrawal syndrome such as
is seen with narcotics such as heroin or with a l c o h o l .
A46
AMPHETAMINES
This group includes amphetamine (Benzedrine or âBennies'),
dexamphetamine ( ' D e x i e s '), and m e t h a m p hetamine ('Crystal'). These drugs all have similar properties but differ in their potency.
Methamphetamine is the most p o t e n t .
These drugs are effective wh e n taken orally. The duration of action
may last for several hours. Once absorbed, they cross the blood--brain
barrier easily and consequently cause the stimulant effects on the
central nervous system. Th e y are usually taken orally but are also used
intravenously ('speed').
Effects on the Body
Amphetamines increase the blood pressure and slow the pulse rate.
They stimulate the b r a i n cortex causing tremor, restlessness and
agitation. Initially, the mental state seems more alert; fatigue is
lessened, and p e r f ormance of simple mental tasks seems to be improved.
Chronic use of this group of drugs results in mental depression and
fatigue. Some users suffer h e a d a c h e , palpitations, confusion,
restlessness and f e a r . Amphetamine tends to reverse the depressant
effects of barbiturates.
The respiratory centre is stimulated, increasing the rate and depth of respiration. A reduction in appetite o c c u r s , this being attributed
to effects on the hypothalamus of the brain. Weight loss may then
ensue, and consequently this has been a means of treatment for many
obese people.
Insomnia is a common reaction to amphetamines. This group of drugs
reduces the rapid eye m ovement (REM) sleep to less than half of the
normal amount. Sleep patterns m a y be disturbed for up to 2 months after
withdrawal of amphetamine. These drugs are useful for treatment of
n a r c o l e p s y .
The m e chanism of the effects of amphetamines upon the central
nervous system is thought to involve the local release of noradrenaline
in the brain.
Acute Amphetamine Toxicity
Overdosage of amphetamines causes irritability, agitation, insomnia, tremor and f e v e r . Palpitations, angina, high or low blood p r e s s u r e , and circulatory failure m a y o c c u r . Convulsions and coma often indicate a
fatal outcome. The toxic dose varies greatly and also depends on the
route of administration. Intravenous injection of more than 100 mg may
be lethal, and an oral dose in excess of 15 mg may be associated with
toxic symptoms.
A47
Intravenous injection of amphetamines is followed by a sensation of 'rush' (i.e., intense pleasure) as the amphetamine bolus reaches the
brain.
Chronic A m p h etamine Intoxication and Add i c t i o n
Similar symptoms to those in acute toxicity occur. However,
abnormal mental reactions are c o m m o n . In particular, a psychosis may
develop with paranoia, delusions and hallucinations. Ele v a t i o n of mood and sense of improved w e l l-being occurs and is largely the reason for
the abuse of these drugs. A d d iction often develops. Tolerance is
frequently seen and is the reason wh y the effects of a given dose 'wear
o f f 1 . Some addicts can take very high oral daily doses because of the
development of tolerance.
W i t h increasing dose and tolerance to the drug, toxic side-effects
are more likely to o c c u r . The p e r s onality of the user alters and he (or
she) becomes preo c c u p i e d with himself, and develops much personal
pseudo-philosophy.
A n amphetamine psychosis may develop w h i c h may be ve r y difficult to
differentiate from spontaneous schizophrenia. Amphetamine users may
take large amounts of these drugs in a 'run', which only ceases when the
drug runs out or wh e n the user is too confused to continue. On ceasing
the 'run' a long sleep ensues, and this is followed by depression,
fatigue and h u n g e r . This is a definite withdrawal syndrome which would
suggest that at least some degree of physical dependence occurs.
METHYLPHENIDATE (RITALIN)
Methylphenidate is a drug wh i c h is structurally related to
amphetamine. It has mild stimulating effects on the central nervous
system and, as such, is potentially a drug of abuse. Its actions are
similar to those of amphetamines and it is of clinical use in
hyperkinetic children with minimal brain dysfunction.
THE XANTHINES: CAFFEINE, THEOBROMINE
Beverages containing xanthines are in common use. Coffee and tea
contain caffeine, and cocoa (not coca) contains theobromine. While the amount of drug in each beverage varies according to the preparation, the actual amounts of caffeine in a cup of tea or coffee are roughly equal,
being approximately 100--150 mg of c a f f e i n e . A cup of decaffeinated
coffee contains only about 5 mg of c a f f e i n e . There may be as much as
200 mg of theobromine in a cup of c o c o a .
Effects of Xanthines
The major effect is that of central nervous system s t i m u l a t i o n .
This occurs to a marked extent with caffeine but to only a small degree
with t h e o b r o m i n e . All areas of the cerebral cortex are stimulated,
A48
resulting in clearer thinking processes and a decreased sense of
fatigue. Speed of performance ma y be enhanced. These effects may all
be seen with tea and coffee drinks, and are responsible for the
beneficial effects attributed to these beverages. If an excessive
amount of caffeine is taken, or if an individual is unduly sensitive to
its effects, then insomnia and tremor may occur.
Other effects of the xanthines include an action on the kidney to
increase urine production. The heart muscle is stimulated and
occasionally irregularity of the heart rhythm is produced. The major
arteries to the heart are dilated. It is likely that caffeine also
directly increases capacity for mu s c u l a r work. Since caffeine increases secretion of gastric juices large amounts of caffeine-containing
beverages are discouraged in patients suffering from peptic ulcers.
Chronic Caffeine Toxicity
Over-indulgence in caffeine-containing beverages can cause symptoms, the most common of wh i c h are restlessness, insomnia and cardiac
irregularities. Feelings of depression may follow the cessation of
caffeine intake. Some degree of tolerance, and indeed habituation,
d e v e l o p s .
However, indulgence in tea and coffee beverages is a firmly
established part of our way of life and there is no evidence to suggest
that, in the great m ajority of people, there is any harm in the habit.
A PPETITE SUPPRESSANT DRUGS
A number of anorectic (appetite suppressant) drugs have very mild
central nervous stimulating effects, and as such have a low abuse
potential. Tolerance and also limited physical and psychological
dependence can develop. The drugs included in this group are
diethylpropion (Te n u a t e ) , phentermine and chlorphentermine (Pre-Sate), and p h e n m e t r a z i n e .
The anorectic effects and the central nervous system effects are
inseparable. Insomnia, nervousness and irritability may occur. On
withdrawal of the drug depression ma y be evident, but in usual
therapeutic doses this effect is slight.
AA9
A50
Chapter 5 Central Nervous System Depressants
Drugs which depress the central nervous system include:
* barbiturates,
* non-barbiturate hypnotics and sedatives,
* tranquillisers, and
* alcohol (discussed in Chapter 1).
THE BARBITURATES
Barbituric acid was synthesized first in 1864, and the first
hypnotic barbiturate was introduced into medicine in 1903.
Phenobarbitone, the second oldest barbiturate, was introduced in 1912. Over 50 barbiturates have been available for clinical u s e . The
pharmacological actions of the barbiturates are similar but the speed of onset and the duration of action differ from one to another. The
barbiturates depress the activity of all excitable tissues but
especially decrease the excitability of nerve cells. The duration of action and speed of onset determine the effects, and therefore the
therapeutic value, of each barbiturate. This group of drugs includes
those which can be used for general anaesthesia (i .e ., the very rapidly
acting drugs), those which can be used for sedative and hypnotic
purp o s e s , and those which are used as anticonvulsants.
The barbiturates can be absorbed by or a l , parenteral and rectal
routes. There is wide distribution of the drug throughout body tissues. Redistribution also occu r s . For example, the rapid termination of
anaesthesia after a single intravenous dose of thiopentone cannot be
accounted for entirely by metabolic breakdown of the drug in the liv e r .
In fact, a major amount of the drug is redistributed from the brain to
other body tissues, especially to muscle and fat stores. Barbiturates
which are not broken down in the body are excreted in the u r i n e . This
elimination process is quite slow, often taking a period of several
d a y s .
A large number of barbiturates are available, not only as single
drugs but also as ingredients in many drug mixtures. They are available
in many preparation forms including capsules, tablets, syrups and
elixirs, and powders and in sustained and delayed-release forms.
Mechanisms of Action
The barbiturates depress all parts of the central nervous system but the higher centres controlling consciousness and mental activity are the first to be affected. Barbiturates decrease the excitability of nerve
cells. Their specific action seems to occur at the junctions between
nerve cells where the chemical 'messengers' between cells are altered.
Effects on the Body
Depression of the central nervous system m a y extend from mild
sedation to deep coma and death. The degree of depression depends on
the type of d r u g , the d o s e , and the route by which it was administered.
Slight sedation m a y not be obvious b u t , as with alcohol ingestion, the
subject may have impaired concentration and judgment, and impaired
driving p e r f o r m a n c e .
Sleep is p r o d u c e d . While to external appearances it may seem to be
a normal type of sleeping pattern, the barbiturates do in fact alter
qualities of sleep and reduce the amount of rapid eye movement (REM)
s l e e p .
F u r t h e r m o r e , after a hypnotic dose at night some subjects experience a slight barbiturate 'hangover' the following morning, such as mild
sleepiness, slight inco-ordination and impairment of concentration, later perhaps followed b y irritability. Some of these effects are due
to the ongoing effects of the barbiturate dose, but other symptoms may
be mild withdrawal symptoms.
Contrary to pop u l a r opinion, the barbiturates do not, of t h e m s e l v e s , have any analgesic activity. General anaesthesia for surgical
procedures may be p r o d u c e d with short-acting drugs given intravenously. Barbiturates alter the wave frequencies on an electroencephalograph
(EEG) recording. The barbiturates suppress convulsions, and
phenobarbitone has a selective anticonvulsant action.
The barbiturates depress respiratory drive and also depress
respiratory r h y t h m . If the dose is excessive respiratory arrest and
death m a y occur.
Small hypnotic doses orally cause only a slight lowering of the
blood pressure and a slight slowing of the heart rate. In anaesthetic
doses the effects on heart function and blood pressure are slight in
those wi t h a normal cardiovascular system, but in subjects with impaired cardiac function a significant fall in blood pressure can occur.
In therapeutic doses barbiturates do not cause damage to hepatic
function. However drugs of this group are capable of 'i n d u c i n g ' the
liver's microsomal drug metabolising system; that is, of enabling the
enzyme system to break down some substances more rapidly. F u r t h e r m o r e , the barbiturates m a y competitively block the breakdown of some d r u g s .
For these reasons barbiturate drugs can have quite striking effects on
the functions of other drugs taken simultaneously.
Clinical Uses of the Barbiturates
Barbiturates are used clinically for sedation, to produce an
hypnotic e f f e c t , an anticonvulsant effect, and for general anaesthesia.
A52
Relief of anxiety states and neuroses m a y be accomplished by drugs
such as amylobarbitone ( A m y t a l ) , p henobarbitone (Ph e n o b a r b ) .
The hypnotic dose (taken at night to induce sleep) is about 2 â 3
times the sedative d o s e . The drugs used, for e x a m p l e , q u i n a l b a r b i t o n e , amylobarbitone, u sually have a short to intermediate duration of action.
Phenobarbitone and methyl phenobarbitone are effective oral
anticonvulsant agents. All barbiturates are anticonvulsant in high
enough dose and they are useful in repeated convulsions occuring rapidly one after the next, i . e . , status epilepticus.
Anaesthesia is induced by intravenous injection of a rapidly acting barbiturate, e .g . , thiopentone sodium (Pentothal).
Acute Barbiturate Poisoning
The onset and d u ration of effects of accidental or deliberate
overdosage of barbiturates vary according to the type of drug taken and
the dose. A moderate overdose m a y result in a state similar to that of
alcohol inebriation. A higher dose causes c o m a , h y p o t h e r m i a , and
respiratory depression, and the blood pressure f a l l s . De a t h usually
occurs from respiratory arrest. The lethal dose varies widely, but
approximately 10 times the hypnotic dose (taken as a single dose) is
likely to cause severe toxicity.
If an overdose of a long-acting barbiturate is taken orally the
p atient may be found in time and taken to hospital. A p atient who takes
an excessive dose of a short-acting barbiturate orally, or takes any
barbiturate p r e p aration intravenously, is likely to be found dead.
A d diction and Tolerance
The illicit use of barbiturates is a widespread problem.
Barbiturates are known as 'g o o f b a l l s ' or 'downs'. They are frequently
used by those who seek to aid the effects of other d r u g s , e . g . , alcohol,
heroin, etc. The shorter acting drugs ( e . g . , p e n t o b a r b i t o n e 'yellow
jackets', quin a l b a r b i t o n e---'red devils') are preferred to the longer acting agents. Tolerance to barbiturates develops quickly,
n ecessitating a larger drug dose to produce the same effects as were
p r oduced initially. Addicts sometimes become resistant to the hypnotic effects of barbiturates but the lethal dose remains u n c h a n g e d . There is some suggestion that a degree of tolerance may develop after a single
administration.
Physical dependence to the chronic administration of barbiturates o c c u r s . The barbiturate addict becomes u n k e m p t , untidy in a p p e a r a n c e , and has poor concentration. Clumsiness, poor co-ordination and slurred speech may be e v i d e n t ; irritability and paranoia are p r e s e n t .
A53
Withdrawal Syndrome
The b a r b iturate addict suffers a characteristic abstinence s y n d r o m e . Upon cessation of barbiturate intake initial improvement seems to occur. App r o x i m a t e l y 10â 12 hours after the last dose tremor, nervousness,
weakness and low blood pressure develop.
B etween 2 and 7 days after cessation of the drug convulsive seizures
occur. Dreams, hallucinations, and insomnia ma y be features, and
delirium sometimes develops. In rare cases, the withdrawal symptoms may be so severe that circulatory collapse, and even death, ensues.
Withdrawal symptoms u sually subside by the eighth day.
NON-BARBITURATE H Y P NOTICS AND SEDATIVES
This section includes ma n y different, unrelated groups of drugs
which have abuse potential. The drug groups included are:
* g l u t e t h i m i d e ;
* bromides;
* chloral hydrate and derivatives;
* e t h c h l o r v y n o l ;
* paraldehyde;
* m e t h a q u a l o n e ;
* benz o d i a z e p i n e s---flurazepam and M e t h y p r y l o n e .
Glutethemide (Doriden) and Methyprylone
The effects of these drugs are similar to those of the barbiturates.
Glutethimide induces sleep without other action, it also alters the
amount of RE M sleep. Glutethimide is absorbed in an unpredictable
fashion. It stimulates the drug metabolism enzyme system of the liver.
Glutethimide is used as a hypnotic and has few side-effects at
therapeutic doses. A 'hangover' from its effects ma y follow in the
morning, associated with headache and nausea. Acute intoxication
produces symptoms similar to those of barbiturate excess. Chronic
administration of glutethimide results in tolerance, psychic and
physical dependence, and an abstinence syndrome similar to that produced by the barbiturates.
Bromides
This group of drugs was once widely used as hypnotic agents but they
have now been replaced by newer and better drugs. The acute effects are
the same as for the barbiturates. However, bromism (chronic bromide
poisoning) encompasses skin rash, constipation, nausea and vomiting,
A54
loss of appetite, conjunctivitis and the mental changes of poor memory, insomnia, delusions and hallucinations.
Chloral Hydrate
Chloral is m e t a bolized in the body to t r i c h l o r o e t h a n o l , which is
responsible for the clinical effects. This substance has an irritant
effect on the stomach. Intoxication with chloral resembles acute
barbiturate poisoning. Tolerance and addiction can occur, and an
abstinence syndrome is seen occasionally. Chloral hydrate is more
dangerous when taken in combination with other drugs, e . g . , alcohol
('Mickey Finn'), wh e n it may lead to coma and death from respiratory
depression and low blood p r e s s u r e .
Ethchlorvynol
Ethchlorvynol is a sedative which has a rapid onset and a short
d uration of action. It may cause nausea and vomiting, low blood
p r e s s u r e , and an unpleasant aftertaste. An excessive dose can cause
deep coma and depression of respiration, blood pressure and heart rate. Tolerance and physical dependence o c c u r , and it produces a withdrawal
syndrome which is similar to the 'D T 1s ' on w ithdrawal from alcohol.
Paraldehyde
This drug has a definite abuse potential but the amount of abuse
seems to be slight. It has an unpleasant o d o u r . On exposure to light,
paraldehyde breaks down to produce very toxic substances so preparation of the drug needs great c a r e . A withdrawal syndrome with convulsions
and delirium can occur.
Methaqualone
Methaqualone is a sedative--hypnotic agent that also has
anticonvulsant and antitussive p r o p e r t i e s . Tolerance and dependence occur. It has sometimes been used in a mixture with an antihistamine
(Mandrax, 'Handies'). The conception that methaqualone possesses
aphrodisiac properties is without p r o o f . However, it produces the
'high' so sought after by the addict. A withdrawal syndrome
(especially convulsions) can occur.
Benzodiazepines
Nitrazepam and flurazepam are considered to be hypnotics. They are
ve r y safe d r u g s , though with excessive doses respiratory depression can occur. These drugs have the same 'hangover' effect the next morning as
do the b a r b i t u r a t e s .
Nitrazepam (Mogadon) is an efficient hypnotic. It causes some
changes in EEG activity. Flurazepam (Dalmane) also induces some changes in the EEG. In moderate doses it does not effect REM sleep, though in
A55
higher doses the RE M sleep is s u p p r e s s e d . F l u razepam causes excessive
drowsiness in some and may also result in slight dizziness and
unsteadiness. If e x c e ssively high doses of flurazepam are continued for a long time p h ysical and psychic dependence can occur.
TRANQUILLISERS
These a n t i -anxiety agents include the benzodiazepines and
m e p r o b a m a t e .
Benzodiazepines
This is a large group of drugs which can be used as s e dative-Â
hypnotics (flurazepam and nitrazepam) and also as tranquillisers or
anti-anxiety d r u g s .
The a n t i - anxiety group includes:
* diazepam ( V a l i u m ) ,
* chlordiazepoxide (L i b r i u m ) ,
" oxazepam.
The anti-anxiety or tranquillising effects have been well shown in
animal experiments. However, the exact mechanism of this effect awaits definition. All of these drugs cause minor changes in the EEC patterns
and can also make the user less susceptible to convulsions. There is a
little depression of the cardiovascular and respiratory s y s t e m s , but
these effects are slight in usual therapeutic d o s e s .
Diazepam is widely used as a muscle relaxant. However, there is no
definite evidence to suggest that diazepam has any additional muscle
relaxant activity over that produced by any other central nervous system depressant. Tolerance and physical dependence occur, but high doses of benzodiazepines must be given before withdrawal symptoms occur. The
withdrawal syndrome is often delayed (for up to one week) and is usually
slight. The toxicity of these drugs when taken in excess is low; the
safety margin is very wide indeed. Depression of the cardiovascular and respiratory system may occur at enormously excessive doses. Death is
very r a r e .
Meprobamate (Equanil, Miltown)
The effects produced by meprobamate are virtually identical with
those of the barbiturates. It suppresses REM sleep in a similar fashion
to the barbiturates and it causes some slight alterations in EEC
recordings. It is also able to induce the liver enzyme and thus causes
interactions with other drugs taken concurrently. The side-effects are drowsiness and inco-ordination. The lethal dose is in excess of 40 g,
the usual therapeutic dose being 400--1200 mg a day. Tolerance and
physical dependence occur. The abstinence syndrome consists of delirium and seizures and occurs 1 to 2 days after cessation of the d r u g .
A56
Chapter 6 Narcotics â Opiates and Synthetic Opiates
Opium has been used both as a drug and as a euphoriant at least since
classical Greek tim e s . The Greek 'opion' means poppy juice.
Incising the unripe seed capsule of the opium poppy, Papaver
somniferum, a plant native to Asia Minor, releases a milky latex
containing opium. An alkaloid was isolated from opium extract in 1803 and was called morphine after the Greek god of dreams. It soon became
apparent that use of this drug as an analgesic or for its euphoriant
effects was associated with severe risk of addiction and toxicity. For
these reasons, a search commenced for non-addictive opiate dru g s .
Production of supposedly non-addictive narcotic analgesic drugs has been disappointing in that, used for a sufficient time, the drug generally
proves to be addictive.
NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
Morphine, the naturally occurring opiate of medical importance, is the standard against which new analgesic drugs are assessed. Many semi synthetic opiates have been made by slight alterations in the chemical
structure of morphine. This group of semisynthetic opiates includes:
* heroin (diacetylmorphine or diamorphine),
* codeine,
* oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, hydromorphone.
Synthetics include:
* methadone,
* pethidine,
* pentazocine (Fortral).
The opiates are readily absorbed from the gastro-intestinal tract or an intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. Some can be
absorbed from the nasal mucosa and lung (e.g., heroin snuff and opium
smoke.) The delay in taking and maintaining effect is longer after
oral ingestion. Once absorbed the drugs become distributed throughout the body. Most of these drugs are detoxified in the liver and the
products are then excreted in the uri n e . Narcotic drugs are generally
excreted from the body quickly, 90% of excretion occurring in the first
24 hours.
Mechanism of Action
Opiates are thought to act at the brain synapses. Quite recently,
scientists have determined that there are specific binding sites
(receptors) for opiates in the brain areas concerned with the sensation of pain and with areas concerned with mood and emotion (the limbic
system). Furthermore the brain contains natural, morphine-like
substances (encephalins and endorphins) which act as neurotransmitters
A57
at the specific receptor sites. There is evidence to suggest that these
mor p h i n e - l i k e substances m ediate the integration of sensory mechanisms involving pain and emotional behaviour.
A m e c h a n i s m for narcotic addiction, physical dependence and
withdrawal symptoms can be understood in the light of the above
findings. A simplified v ersion is as follows. If the natural opiate
receptors in the br a i n are subjected to sustained treatment by an
external narcotic, then the overloaded receptor is able to suppress the
amount of available, n a t u r a lly-occurring opiate in the brain. The body
then depends on the external source of opiate. Should this be
withdrawn, the opiate receptors have neither external opiate nor
internal opiate, and this lack initiates withdrawal s y m p t o m s .
Furthermore this model explains why cross tolerance develops: for
example, heroin withdrawal symptoms can be suppressed wi t h m e t h a d o n e .
The Effects of O piates on the Body
The effects described below refer to m o r p h i n e , the p r o totype of the
opiate family. How e v e r the effects of other narcotics are ve r y similar.
The maj o r i t y of the effects are on the central nervous system.
Analgesia occurs w ithout loss of consciousness. Cough is suppressed.
The best relief is felt in continuous, dull pain rather than in s h a r p ,
stabbing pain. Dro w s i n e s s and euphoria, changes in mood and some mental
clouding m a y occur. C o n c e n tration ma y be impaired. There is increasing
drowsiness with increasing dose. Nausea and vomiting may o c c u r . The
pupils of the eyes are constricted in s i z e . The respiratory centres in
the brain stem ma y be depressed, and with increasing doses of morphine
the respiratory d e p ression is the most important factor leading to
death.
The arteries in the limbs m a y be dilated in response to morphine and
this results in a drop in blood p r e s s u r e , especially when the subject is
standing. There may be little or no change in blood pressure when the
subject is supine.
Morphine increases the muscle tone of the stomach and small bowel
and decreases m o t i l i t y throughout the intestine; this results in
constipation, and is the reason why opiates (especially codeine) are
widely used as anti-diarrhoeal agents. Therapeutic doses of opiates can cause an increase in the muscle tone in the bile duct. Consequently,
opiates are usu a l l y not given to patients wi t h bil i a r y colic for fear of
exacerbating the pain rather than relieving it.
Itchiness of the skin is a relatively common symptom following
administration of opiates. This effect may be due to the vasodilation
of cutaneous blood vessels.
Acute Opiate Poisoning
Accidental overdosage in addicts, suicidal attempts and clinical
overdosage ma y result in acute poisoning. The amount of opiate required for a toxic dose depends on many factors but the most important is
tolerance. If a subject has been exposed to previous doses of the
opiate then tolerance develops quickly and a higher dose can be achieved without toxic effects. However in an adult person not previously
A58
exposed to opiates ma j o r toxic symptoms can be expected after a
parenteral dose of about 20--30 mg of m o rphine or after an oral dose of
40--60 mg of morphine. Children are ve r y sensitive to opiates. The
clinical effects seen are drowsiness rapidly progressing to sleep and
deep c o m a . R e s p iration is slow and shallow, and a lack of oxygen may be
evident by the presence of cyanosis (a bl u i s h colouration of the skin,
especially mouth, mucous membranes and fingers). The pupils are
extremely small like 1 p i n p o i n t s 1 . Medical treatment is required
u rgently in such cases. The use of specific narcotic a n t a g o n i s t s , e . g . , n a l o x o n e , is frequently h e l p f u l .
Opiate Addiction
Tolerance and physical dependence on the opiates develop quickly in subjects after repeated exposure. This fact imposes stringent limits on the clinical uses of these drugs. Some of the synthetic opiates may be
less addictive than m o rphine or heroin. Nevertheless all of these
agents possess the ability to induce tolerance, dependence and
withdrawal symptoms.
Rapid intravenous injection of an opiate (especially heroin or
morphine) results in a 'rush' or 't h r i l l ' or 'kick', a pleasant
sensation of wa r m flushing of the skin and 'morphine e u p h o r i a ' is
produced. This is a feeling of well-being and a state in wh i c h pain and
anxiety are suppressed. H owever the episodic injection requires an
increasing dose in order to provide the same effects given by the
original dose. The use and the dose of drug therefore increase in a
self-perpetuating fashion.
The risks of addiction include the possibility of overdose with
acute opiate toxicity. Impurities in 'street' supplies of narcotics can result in further toxicity. Sudden death ma y occur as a result of acute
collapse following injection of some impurities. Because of the
declining social, moral and hygienic standards of addicts, they are at
risk of a range of infections, especially septicaemia, hepatitis and
endocarditis. Narcotics use also takes a heavy toll through social
problems related to add i c t i o n---the effects on domestic life, marriage, work, etc.
Opiate drugs reduce pain and aggression and generally should be
unlikely to increase crime rates. However, the addict becomes desperate for more of the drug and requires large sums of mo n e y to obtain it. He
is therefore sometimes forced into crime to overcome this obstacle.
Withdrawal Syndrome
'Kicking the habit' and 'cold turkey' are colloquial expressions
indicative of the abstinence s y n d r o m e . The intensity of the abstinence syndrome depends on the duration of exposure and the doses taken. It is
likely that doses of, or in excess of, 80 mg of morphine a day for a
month or more will produce an abstinence syndrome.
The events following withdrawal from morphine are as follows. Here, morphine is taken as the prototype for the g r o u p ; withdrawals from the
other opiates will be similar in quality but differ in their intensity.
A59
A p p r o x imately 8--16 hours after cessation of the opiate sweating and
nasal stuffiness occur. Restlessness ma y develop, and after a day or so
there is marked insomnia. The pupils are e n l a r g e d , the flesh shivers
( 1 cold turkey') and the limbs and trunk muscles ache and twitch. Nausea
and v omiting occur on the second or third day, and the peak symptoms are
reached in 2--3 days after cessation of the opiate. After 10 more days
most of the severe symptoms have passed, though insomnia may persist
l o n g e r . Then follows a protracted abstinence syndrome in which
depression, anxiety, and fatigue m a y be p resent for weeks. The
w i t hdrawal phase is rarely fatal.
SPECIFIC NARCOTICS
Codeine is m a i n l y used clinically as a cough suppressant and as a
mild analgesic. It is less potent than morphine, does not cause as much
e u p h o r i a , and has mi l d e r withdrawal symptoms.
Heroin is a ve r y potent narcotic wh i c h is able to pass into the
brain much m ore r eadily than morphine. H e r o i n is broken down to form
morphine in the body. It is an e x tremely addictive drug and the
withdrawal syndrome is severe.
Pethidine is a less potent drug than m orphine wi t h respect to
euphoria, analgesia and respiratory depression. The duration of action is mu c h shorter than that of morphine. Tolerance is fairly slow to
develop, and the w i t hdrawal syndrome occurs more rapidly, but for a
shorter duration, than w i t h morphine.
Diphenoxylate (Lomotil) is structurally closely related to
pethidine. Its m a i n use is in the suppression of d i a r r h o e a . H o w e v e r ,
taken orally in doses in the therapeutic range the drug p roduces little
in the way of morp h i n e - l i k e subjective e f f e c t s , The salts of this drug
are insoluble in a liquid medium and hence are not available for
administration by injection.
Methadone is a synthetic drug wh i c h does not resemble morphine
structurally but its pharmacological actions are ve r y similar to those
of morphine. It is an excellent analgesic and is efficient w h e n taken
orally. Tolerance seems to develop more slowly to m e thadone than to
m o r p h i n e . Its abuse p o t ential is equal to that of morphine.
Propoxyphene is structurally related to methadone. It has good
analgesic p r o p e r t i e s . Its potential for p r oducing nausea and
constipation is about the same as that of codeine. At therapeutic doses
it produces little or no toxicity. In high doses central nervous system
depression and respiratory depression m a y occur. The abuse potential of propoxyphene is less than that of codeine. A mild abstinence syndrome
ma y occur after p r olonged administration.
Pentazocine (Fortral) was synthesised in an attempt to create a drug with good analgesic properties but with few or no addictive properties.
To some extent this aim was achieved in that p e n t azocine does not
substitute well for opiates in addicts w ishing to obtain morphine-like effects. However tolerance, physical dependence, and a withdrawal
syndrome do o c c u r . As well as acting like an opiate it also acts in
higher dosages as an antagonist to opiate effects and produces
nalorphine like side-effects, such as anxiety and nightmares.
A60
Pentazocine is widely used as an a n a l g e s i c , though it is not as potent
as morphine or p e t h i d i n e . There is lower abuse associated with oral
administration than with injections of pentazocine.
A61
A62
Chapter 7 Cannabis
Cannabis sativa (Indian hemp) is a plant which grows between 6 and 15
feet h i g h . It has been used as a medicine and a drug for countless
centuries. This plant produces a number of physiologically active
substances (cannabinoids), the most common ones b e i n g :
tetrahydrocannabinol (TEC), cannabidiol (CBD), and cannabinol (CBN).
TEC is the main drug which alters mood; CBD has no effects on mood,
and CBN has only weak effects. The most potent resins containing these
three cannabinoids are found in the flowering tops of the female plant.
The manner in which cannabis is prepared and sold depends on the
country of origin, and the potency of the preparations differs. The
most common mode of preparation is that the hemp plant is cut, dried,
chopped and rolled into cigarettes.
Marihuana ('grass', 'pot', 'Buddha sticks' , etc.) is the leaf and
flowering tops which is used for smoking. It is relatively weak and
contains typically 1% of TEC.
Cannabis resin or hashish is a concentrated form and may contain
high concentrations (10%) of T E C .
Cannabis oil or hashish oil is an extract of cannabis prepared by
the use of organic solvents. It contains very high concentrations
(10%--60%) of TEC.
The amount of drug entering the circulation varies according to the
route of entry into the body. Marihuana cigarette smoking results in no
more than a 50% absorption of the TEC present, and consequently the
actual amount of drug absorbed from one cigarette (a 'joint') is likely
to be less than 5 mg of TEC. The effects become apparent within a few
minutes and last for about 2 â 3 hours after a single dose. If cannabis
is taken orally the effects commence about 30 minutes to one hour later
and last for 3 â 5 hours. TEC is much more effective when inhaled in
smoke than when taken orally.
TEC can enter into brain tissues with ease. It can also cross the
placental barrier and enter the circulation of an unborn child. The
liver is the major organ which breaks down the d r u g . It takes
approximately 4 to 5 days for cannabinoids to be eliminated from the
body.
A single marihuana cigarette when smoked is likely to produce a
feeling of well-being, relaxation, and drowsiness. There may be slight inco-ordination and slight impairment of memory and judgement. The
sense of time may be distorted. If the dose achieved is higher (either
A63
by repeated smoking or by additional oral ingestion) these effects are
more marked. In particular, there m a y be dif f i c u l t y c o n c e ntrating on a
task, and in order to achieve the completion of the task each p a r ticular
step involved ma y have to be pain s t a k i n g l y p e r formed in turn. This
process has be e n termed 1 temporal d i s i n t e g r a t i o n '. Depe r s o n a l i z a t i o n ma y o c c u r---a strange sensation of unreality about oneself.
H i g h doses of TEC may cause paranoia and h a l l u c i n a t i o n s . Panic
attacks ma y be precipitated. The clinical appearance m a y be that of a
p s ychotic syndrome.
A n increase in heart rate o c c u r s . There are few important effects
on the cardiovascular system in a normal subject but marihuana m a y cause
chest pain and reduce exercise tolerance in people with compromised
cardiac function. Initial a d ministration may result in improved
respiratory function due to dilatation of the bronchi but chronic
smoking of m a r ihuana impairs lung function. The conjunctivae become
r e d d e n e d . Pressure wi t h i n the eye may be decreased.
If cannabis is taken together with other drugs, e .g ., alcohol, the
effect is additive.
At present it appears that intermittent use of cannabis in low
dosages does not pr o d u c e any permanent brain damage. While there is no
definite proof, to date, that long-term chronic h i g h dosages of cannabis produce any lasting br a i n impairment this needs further study. There
have been suggestions that cannabis might cause p r o l o n g e d abnormalities of mental function, including per s o n a l i t y disorders and a cannabis
psychosis. There is no proven evidence that such disorders are caused
by c a n n a b i s . Cannabis can occasionally cause isolated âf l a s h b a c k s ' or
similar experiences which occur in the drug-free state. These can
occur, it seems, whether or not the user has ever taken LSD, a drug
which provokes similar 'flashbacks'.
It has be e n suspected that marihuana might cause alterations to
human genetic functioning, but this hypothesis remains u n p r o v e d .
F u r t h e r m o r e , there is no definite evidence of teratogenesis ( i .e .,
causing malformations in unborn infants) but investigations are
continuing.
Cannabis and Dr i v i n g Ability
The results of a number of studies indicate quite s t rongly that use
of cannabis can a d versely affect driving skills. Often, associated
factors such as concurrent alcohol intake makes assessment of the
contribution of cannabis difficult.
A64
Acute Toxicity
THC has a wide safety margin, much more so than does alcohol. It is
almost impossible to get a lethal dose of THC from smoking marihuana
j o i n t s .
With repeated use at short intervals the drug accumulates in the
body. Only one death has been reported in the literature as being due
to chronic build up of THC in the b o d y .
Tolerance and Physical Dependence
Tolerance does occur if cannabis is administered regularly over a
long interval. While mild withdrawal symptoms (such as irritability,
restlessness and insomnia) occasionally develop in those who have
regularly taken a high dose of THC, there is not a typical abstinence
syndrome and there are no withdrawal effects from the usual l o w - d o s e ,
'r e c r e a t i o n a l 1 use of the drug.
At the present t i m e , it would not seem that infrequent
1 r e c r e a t i o n a l ' use of cannabis produces any severe direct consequences to health. As already mentioned, there is impairment of driving
ability. Higher doses and frequent chronic use may constitute a
significant degree of risk to the u s e r , but further research on this is
n e e d e d .
A65
A66
Chapter 8 Hallucinogens
Some drugs are able to produce symptoms resembling those in
spontaneously occurring psychoses. A person with a psychotic illness is one in whom mental functioning is impaired to such a degree as to
interfere with capacity to cope with day-to-day demands. The person
has lost touch with reality and has distortion of perceptions. The
symptoms include illusions, delusions, paranoia, hallucinations, and altered mood and thinking processes. Since psychedelic drugs produce a psychotic-like syndrome they may be useful models for the study of
mechanisms of spontaneous psychotic illnesses.
Psychedelic drugs have had an ancient association with tribal
ritual, folklore and religion. The sought-after effects of these drugs include the sensation of increased awareness of surroundings, and the
altered perception of the surroundings as being beautiful. The user
sees himself in a different way and 1 finds himself' by looking inwards.
However, the user also loses control over the experience. Effects other than those sought may be achieved, thus creating a terrifying
experience. The drugs have been termed 'mind expanders' from their
assumed ability to enable the user to view the world more clearly and
deeply. These drugs alter perception and the thinking processes much
more than they alter consciousness.
The drugs included under this heading are:
* lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD),
* mescaline,
* psilocybin and other 'mushroom' hallucinogens,
* phencyclidine.
LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE (LSD)
LSD was first synthesized in 1938 by Dr A. Hofmann. Some 5 years
later he accidentally absorbed a small quantity through the skin of his
fingers and experienced alterations in perception.
The drug is usually taken orally. LSD is rapidly absorbed and
distributed in body tissues. Only a small amount reaches the brain.
LSD is broken down by the liver and is excreted predominantly in the
faeces. It is very potent, being 4000 times more potent than mescaline
and 100 times more potent than psilocybin in producing changes in
perception. Following doses of 0.5--2 micrograms of LSD per kilogram of
body weight effects are demonstrable in a few minutes: weakness,
dizziness and nausea are followed by emotional lability. By the second
or third hour changes in perception occur often in a wave for m . Sense
of time becomes confused and insight is lost.
A67
The e x p erience for each user is d i f f e r e n t , and it is difficult to
describe. Du r i n g the 'trip' colours ma y be h e a r d , sounds may be s e e n .
Visual hal l u c i n a t i o n s m a y be present; auditory h allucinations are very uncommon. Mo o d changes from euphoria to d e p ression occur rapidly. The
subject feels detached. External p h e n o m e n o n may have increased meaning. A n x i e t y ma y lead to panic attacks. Acute fear and tension can be
experienced in a 'bad trip'. There is no evidence to suggest that LSD
functions as an aphrodisiac. Ho w e v e r sexual activity ma y be increased
when inhibitions relax.
Other actions of LSD include e n l a rgement of the pupils, increase in
the pulse rate and blood p r e s s u r e , increased body t e m p e r a t u r e , tremor,
and muscular w e a k n e s s . The effects subside after 12--24 h o u r s . With
long-term use there has been some concern that LSD can cause teratogenic
effects and damage to c h r o m o s o m e s . However, these effects are not
proven.
The mec h a n i s m whe r e b y LSD exerts its p s y c hedelic effects is u n k n o w n . Probably part of its action relates to effects on the neurotran s m i t t e r
5 - h y d r o x y t r y p t a m i n e . Fatal accidents and suicides caused by excessive ingestion of L S D have be e n reported but are r a r e . T o lerance occurs
quickly. C r o s s - t olerance is produced to m e s caline and psilocybin.
Tolerance rapidly disappears when drug use ceases a b ruptly and no
withdrawal syndrome is p r o d u c e d .
There is definite evidence that LSD causes p s y c h ological c h a n g e s .
These include the following:
a. A bad trip is a temporary episode of acute panic reaction. There is
no way to predict when a 'bad t r i p ' will occur. It happens in those
who have had previous 'good trips'.
b. Flashbacks are episodes in wh i c h the drug effects are experienced
again, but occur in a drug-free state.
c. Severe depression, paranoia, or psychotic illness may be
precipitated. These may resemble schizophrenia.
d. There have been some reports that slight deficits in thinking
processes (especially the abstract thought processes) ma y occur, but this is disputed.
There are no clinical conditions for which LSD is of proven
therapeutic v a l u e .
MESCALINE
Mescaline is an alkaloid obtained from a cactus plant. It is much
less potent than LSD but it also produces visual hallucinations,
perceptual alterations, and somatic effects such as vomiting. An oral
dose of 5 mg of m e s caline per kilogram of body weight will produce
A68
effects lasting for about 12 hours. Mescaline is used interchangeably
with LSD by users.
MUSHROOMS AND PSILOCYBIN
Psilocybin and psilocin are active ingredients of the 'magic
mushroom' of M e x i c o . These fungi were eaten by Mexican Indians and used
especially in religious c e r e m o n i e s . These substances are much less
potent than LSD but, o v e r a l l , the effects are similar. Once again, the
LSD user can substitute an adequate dose of psilocybin. Initial effects include relaxation and a state similar to mild alcohol inebriation.
This is followed b y h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , mental clouding of c o n s c i o u s n e s s , perceptual changes, excitement and e u p h o r i a . These drugs also cause
increases in body temperature and pulse r a t e . Tolerence develops but
there is no characteristic abstinence s y n d r o m e .
PHENCYCLIDINE
Phencyclidine piperidine (PCP) has recently become a popular
'recreational' d r u g , particularly in the United States of America. It
was originally developed in the late 1950's as a medical drug for
producing dissociative anaesthesia but it proved to be unsuitable
because it caused behavioural disturbances. A similar and related d r u g , ketamine, is however used medically to produce dissociative anaesthesia (that is, a sense of detachment from the environment, with analgesia but without significant suppression of respiratory or cardiovascular
f u n ction.)
Phencyclidine may be administered orally or, rarely, intravenously. However, it is most commonly smoked or 'snorted' as a 'crystal j o i n t ' .
It is also known on the street as 'angel dust', 'elephant
tranquilliser', 'rocket f u e l ' , 'superweed' and 'cyclones', to mention but a few. Street preparations are often adulterated, and the user may
sometimes take other drugs unknowingly. Synthesis of PCP is not
especially difficult and does not require elaborate e q u i p m e n t ;
consequently, it is usually p r o c u r a b l e .
PCP can simulate alcoholic 'd r u n k e n n e s s '. A degree of analgesia and anaesthesia occurs if a sufficient dose is taken. The drug seems to
isolate the brain from awareness of surrounding stimuli. Large doses
may produce convulsions. Increased pulse rate and increase in blood
pressure occur. PCP probably causes alteration in several of the
neurotransmitter systems in the b r a i n . More research work is required
to further elucidate these c h a n g e s .
The effects of an overdose of PCP depend on the dose taken, when it
was taken, and whether it had been used previously. Unsteadiness,
nausea and vomiting, f e a r , confusion, p a r a n o i a , unconsciousness and
convulsions can all occur. If a sufficient quantity of PCP is taken,
respiratory depression, coma and death may result. Diagnosis of PCP
overdose may be difficult as the initial appearances may be those of an
acute schizophrenic illness.
A69
Following successful medical treatment of the acute toxic state
delirium, confusion and paranoia m a y follow for a period of time.
D e p ression and suicidal liability can pe r s i s t for a longer time. It can
take as long as 15 days for acute intoxication to c l e a r .
Intoxication may occur in two stages. The acute toxicity state
results from 'r e c r e a t i o n a l ' use of the drug. A psychotic state may
occur sometimes from an acute d o s e , but frequently it occurs after
chronic a d m i n i stration of high doses. The psychosis ma y not occur until
some hours or days after the drug was taken.
Individual sensitivity to PCP is variable. However, it seems
certain that PCP can p roduce schizophrenic illness of v arying degrees of severity in patients who have no previous p s y c hiatric abnormalities.
F u r t h e r m o r e , it can reactivate schizophrenic psychosis in patients
previously affected. In pre v i o u s l y normal patients the schizophrenic
illness m a y last for hours but sometimes for days or weeks. The
psychosis resolves finally without s e q u e l a e . In p r e viously
schizophrenic patients the exacerbation m a y last for several weeks.
The initial ph a s e of the psychosis lasts about 5 days and is
characterised b y v iolent b e h a v i o u r , depression with delirium, thought disorder and p a r a n o i a . Suicidal tendencies may be apparent. Sometimes the subject remains mute and catatonic. The second phase lasts for a
further 5 days and b e h aviour is u n p r e d i c t a b l e ; the patient is r e s t l e s s . The final 4-day phase encompasses a return to the normal personality.
PCP is an hallucinogen which has v e r y dangerous consequences for
those individuals who prove to be sensitive to this drug.
The reasons w h y PCP is used and abused are not always clear since
very often it seemingly produces more negative effects than positive
o n e s . However, it seems that the sought-after effects include
heightened sensitivity to external s t i m u l i , stimulation and mood
elevation, d i s s o ciation and relaxation. Frequent negative effects
include r e s t l e s s n e s s , anxiety, disorientation and unpleasant perceptual effects. P a r a n o i a , irritability and mental confusion may be frequently p r o d u c e d . Disturbances of speech m a y occur. The hallucinogenic
experiences m a y be intensely frightening. Fre q u e n t l y there are
preoccupation with death and sensations of 'n o t h i n g n e s s '.
The initial use of low-dose PCP results in a pleasurable 'high', a
shortlived, euphoric experience. Users gradually gain a tolerance to
its effects and take large doses more frequently. The experience of the
'high' becomes more intense and sometimes the feeling of detachment
becomes frightening. It is not known whether physical dependence
o c c u r s .
A70
Chapter 9 Volatile Solvents
Nitrous oxide (1 laughing gas'), ethyl ether ('ether') and chloroform are volatile solvents best known for their medical uses such as inhalational anaesthesia. These substances w e r e , in the nineteenth century,
sometimes used as non-medical 'recreational' drugs for entertainment. They still retain their medical applications. However, many volatile
solvents are not used medically but rather for industrial and domestic
purposes.
Hydrocarbon inhalation or 'glue-sniffing' commenced to a significant degree in North America in about 1960. Since then the habit has
increased markedly. The term 'glue-sniffing' originated because
aeroplane gl u e , containing acetone or toluene, was one of the first
substances to be inhaled. Those who practise this habit tend to be
teenagers, and are likely to be males rather than females.
A very long list of agents are used for 'glue-sniffing'. Such
agents include fingernail polish remover, household cement, plastic
cement, aeroplane glue, paint thinner, cleaning fluid, gasoline, anti freeze, contents of aerosol cans, and pure solvents such as acetone,
ethyl ether and toluene.
The active chemicals that may be present in these substances include acetone, toluene, benzene, trichloroethylene, ethyl ether, alcohols, ketones, etc. The chemical properties of these agents are quite
diverse. However all of them are able to produce psychological and
physiological effects w h i c h , in the first instance, are considered
desirable by the user.
Administration usually involves inhalation. The substances are
absorbed via the respiratory tract and pass quickly into the bloodstream and to the brain. The effects of inhalation are felt in seconds.
Similarly, elimination of these substances is rapid. Very few of these
agents are altered in the b o d y . While the initial effect of inhalation
may be excitatory the overall effect is one of central nervous system
depression. The effects are somewhat similar to those produced by
alcohol or barbiturates.
Effects on the Body
The effects produced by 'glue sniffing' increase as the amount of
agent inhaled increases. Initial euphoria occurs and may be accompanied by dizziness, analgesia, visual and/or auditory hallucinations, nausea and vomiting, behavioural disturbances, coughing and sneezing. Moderate repeated 'sniffing' will produce a 'high' which can be maintained by an
experienced user for some hours. A single dose will have effects
lasting for about 40 minutes. The hallucinations may be pleasant or
terrifying. Most chronic users adjust the dose to avoid the depressant
effects. They may however get bloodshot ey e s , experience fatigue, and
suffer weight loss and personality changes. With increasing doses
A71
depressant effects then take over. Confusion and loss of inhibitions
occur, followed b y cramps and visual d i s t u r b a n c e s , slurred speech and
inco-ordination. With severe intoxication, coma and convulsions may
o c c u r .
Serious, and even fatal, cardiac irregularities ma y o c c u r ,
especially in users inhaling in circumstances where there is limited
ventilation. Breathing in those circumstances causes a lack of oxygen
and an excess of carbon dioxide in the lungs, and potentiates
disturbances in heart rhythm. Sudden death syndromes have been reported not infrequently. Bone marrow is depressed by some of these agents,
hence the pro d u c t i o n of blood cells can fall and anaemia results.
Some of the hydrocarbons, especially trichloroethylene (present in cleaning fluid) have damaging effects on the liver and k i d n e y s .
Inhalation of impurities into the lungs can cause lung disease. There
is also some evidence to suggest that chromosomal ( i .e ., genetic)
abnormalities are higher in 'glue sniffers'. There is evidence to
suggest that permanent brain damage ma y occur but this has not yet been
definitely e s t a b l i s h e d .
In the chronic user tolerance can be quite marked and psychological
dependence certainly o c c u r s . There m a y be a mild withdrawal syndrome
consisting of headache, abdominal pain, hallucinations and muscle
c r a m p s . H o w e v e r , there is no definite evidence of a state of physical
dependence developing in the chronic 'g l u e - s n i f f e r '.
A72
Part III
P atterns o f D rug U se
Part III Patterns of Drug Use
C h a p t e r 1 . Legal Use o f D r ugs
C h a p t e r 2 . I l l e g a l Use of D r u g s
C h a p t e r 3. Why P e o p l e Use D r u g s
C h a p t e r 4 . P r o f i l e s of I l l e g a l D r u g Users
C h a p t e r 5 . The C o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n I l l e g a l D r u g U s e
a n d O t h e r C r i m i n a l A c t i v i t i e s
C h a p t e r 6 . M u l t i p l e D r u g Use
T h e C o m m i s s i o n c a m e i n t o p o s s e s s i o n o f an e n o r m o u s v o l u m e
o f e v i d e n c e on d r u g a b u s e . It d i d t h i s w i t h o u t c o n d u c t i n g
s u r v e y s o f the p u b l i c on a n y s t a t i s t i c a l l y v a l i d b a s i s .
M o s t o f t h e e v i d e n c e g i v e n to the C o m m i s s i o n b y i l l e g a l
d r u g a b u s e r s or f o r m e r i l l e g a l d r u g a b u s e r s w a s f u r n i s h e d
v o l u n t a r i l y as the C o m m i s s i o n on o n l y a f e w o c c a s i o n s u s e d
i t s s t a t u t o r y p o w e r s to c o m p e l the a t t e n d a n c e o f w i t n e s s e s .
It f o l l o w s t h a t t h e r e h a s n o t b e e n a u n i f o r m or c o n t r o l l e d
s a m p l i n g o f th e c o m m u n i t y on q u e s t i o n s o f i l l e g a l d r u g a b u s e .
N e v e r t h e l e s s it a p p e a r e d to t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t e v i d e n c e it
h a d o b t a i n e d p e r m i t t e d the C o m m i s s i o n to i n c l u d e in its R e p o r t
c e r t a i n t o p i c s w h i c h , w h i l e n o t d i r e c t l y r a i s e d b y a s p e c i f i c
q u e s t i o n , w e r e s t i l l r e l e v a n t to the T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e a n d
a p p e a r e d to be t o p i c s o f i n t e r e s t to the c o m m u n i t y .
T h i s P a r t g i v e s a p i c t u r e o f s o m e a s p e c t s o f d r u g a b u s e
c o m p o s e d f r o m e v i d e n c e the C o m m i s s i o n r e c e i v e d . C h a p t e r 3,
'Why P e o p l e U s e D r u g s ' , a n d C h a p t e r 4, ' P r o f i l e s o f I l l e g a l
D r u g U s e r s ' , ar e l a r g e l y c o m p o s e d f r o m w h a t w i t n e s s e s t o l d the
C o m m i s s i o n on o a t h or a f f i r m a t i o n . It is b e l i e v e d t h a t C h a p t e r s
s u c h as t h e s e g i v e the r e a d e r an i n s i g h t i n t o the i l l e g a l
' d r u g s c e n e ' , as it w a s d e s c r i b e d to the C o m m i s s i o n b y s o m e
wi t n e s s e s .
It m u s t be s t r e s s e d that t h i s P a r t d o e s n o t p r e t e n d to be
a v a l i d s t a t i s t i c a l a s s e s s m e n t o f the t o p i c s t r e a t e d in e a c h
C h a p t e r .
A73
A74
Chapter 1 Legal Use of Drugs
Witnesses and submissions to the Commission tended to place less
emphasis on the legal use of drugs than on illegal use. Several
committees and commissions of enquiry have investigated the use and
abuse of such drugs as nicotine, alcohol, over the counter drugs,
analgesics and prescription drugs in Australia and the reader is
referred to their reports, included in the list hereunder.
'Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse' ---Report from the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, 1971 (Open Exhibit 19)
'Drug Problems in Australia - an intoxicated society?' ---Report from the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare (1977) (Open Exhibit 379)
Report of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs (1979) (Open Exhibit 586)
'Drug Dependence. The Scene in Victoria' ---Report by the Victorian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (1974) (Open Exhibit
286)
'Drugs, Alcohol and Community Control' ---A monograph by R. Tomasic.
(1977) (Open Exhibit 314)
A short discussion of the use of legal drugs is included here
because the Commission is of the opinion that the level of illegal drug
use in the community is related to the level of legal drug use.
Witnesses suggested that heavy use of legal drugs encouraged the
view that there was a chemical solution to all problems, including non medical ones such as depression and loneliness. As a result, people
increasingly turn to drugs (particularly nicotine, alcohol, analgesics, sedatives and tranquillisers to overcome personal problems. Witnesses further considered that this reliance on drugs to improve one's
situation was often involved in young people turning to illegal drug
use. They commented that for some of today's you t h , cannabis, heroin
and other drugs have replaced alcohol, analgesics, sedatives and
tranquillisers as the drugs of release.
Accordingly, this chapter will consider the level of use of those legal drugs often used to escape personal problems ---nicotine, alcohol, over the counter drugs analgesics, hypno-sedatives and tranquillisers. It will also discuss the use of those legal drugs which are often
diverted to illicit use (e.g. the narcotics such as Palfium and
methadone; methaqualone and the amphetamines). Of course some drugs
such as the barbiturates fall into both the above categories.
Evidence presented to the Commission on the above questions included a large number of surveys carried out by various government and academic bodies and private individuals. Although it is impossible for space
A75
reasons to p u b l i s h these surveys in full, their titles and the names of
their authors are published in order of first mention in a list at the
end of this chapter as 'Annex 1 1 1 . 1 , Surveys on the Use of Drugs
Referred to in Chapter 1'.
TOBACCO (NICOTINE)
Commonwealth Department of Health statistics show the total amount of tobacco consumed in Australia has undergone a series of fluctuations since the financial year, 1972--73 until in 1 9 7 7 - - 7 8 , Australians
consumed 32.3 m i l l i o n kilograms of tobacco. The amount of money spent
in this country o n tobacco products has increased generally since 1972-Â 73. In 1977â 78 a total of $1180 million was s p e n t . To further place
this usage in perspective, it should be noted that Australians are
estimated to smoke 2800 million cigarettes each month (Open Exhibit
379).
In February 1977, the Australian Bureau of Statistics conducted a
survey of alcohol and tobacco consumption patterns of persons aged 18
and over (Survey 1, Annex I I I .1). The Bureau published the results with
a warning that the survey could have suffered from u n d e r - r e p o r t i n g . The survey estimated that almost 3.3 mi l l i o n Australians (35.9 per cent)
were currently cigarette s m o k e r s , 1.5 m illion (16.3 per cent) were e x Â
cigarette smokers and 4.4 million (47.9 per cent) had never smoked
regularly. More males were current smokers than females, whilst more
women had never smoked regularly. Similarly, m e n generally smoked more cigarettes than w o m e n - 33.5 per cent of all male smokers smoked more
than 20 tailor made cigarettes per day compared with only 13.8 per cent
of all female smokers (i.e. 12.0 per cent of all men, 4.0 per cent of
all women and 7.9 pe r cent of all persons in Australia).
Both the proportion of regular smokers and the number of tailor made
cigarettes smoked decreased after 65 years of age. This is probably due
to the subtraction, through death, of heavy smokers in the population
and the giving up of smoking b y the elderly for health and financial
reasons. Although a similar proportion of those aged 18 to 24 and 25 to
44 smoked regularly, the level of consumption was considerably higher for the latter age group---13 per cent of smokers in the younger group
smoked more than 20 tailor made cigarettes per day compared with over 28
per cent of smokers in the older group.
The prevalence of smoking did not vary significantly from the
national average in any of the States, although there were considerably more regular smokers in the Northern Territory and slightly more e x Â
cigarette smokers in the Australian Capital Territory.
Those occupations with the highest proportions of smokers included miners, transport and communication w o r k e r s , tradesmen, process workers and labourers. Professional and technical occupations had the largest proportion of people who had never smoked r e g u l a r l y , whilst more
administrative, executive and managerial people had given up cigarette smoking than any other occupation.
A76
Similar results were obtained by several other surveys, including a Canberra mental health survey carried out by the A.C.T. Health Service
in 1971 (Survey 2) and a study carried out by N.J. Gray and D.J. Hill of
the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria 1974--76 (Survey 3). This last
study also showed a slight downward trend in male smoking and a slight
increase in female smoking over the period 1974 to 1976 (Open Exhibit
172) .
Various other surveys the examined the smoking habits of high school students. The results of the 1973--74 Australian National University
Drug Education Project survey of Australian Capital Territory secondary students (Survey 4) are summarised in T able III.l h e r e u n d e r .
Table II I . l : Use of Tobacco by Boys and Girls at A.C.T. Secondary
Schools in 1974.
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form
% % % l % %
Boys 12.7 21.8 25.1 37.1 40.6 37.2
Girls 9.0 23.2 31.3 34.6 37.8 40.3
(Open Exhibit 194, pp4.3--4.4)
The survey showed that whilst only 13 out of 100 boys in Form one
smoked, 37 out of 100 Form Six boys smoked. Although a similar survey
in 1973 found that more boys tended to smoke than girls, no clear
pattern between the sexes was found in 1974.
Slightly higher results were obtained by the surveys, 'Drug Use by
the Young Population of Melbourne' in 1972, and a corresponding Ballarat study in 1974 (Surveys 5 and 6). Both these surveys found that one in
two secondary students smoked. The majority were very light smokers
with only one in five smoking more than five cigarettes each day (Open
Exhibit 183).
'Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Use in New South Wales' (Survey 7), a
follow-up study of the survey 'Monitoring Drug Use in New South Wales'
(Survey 8) examined the smoking habits of Fourth Form students in 1977. The results of both these surveys are given in Table III.2. This 1977
study showed that whilst the proportion of students who had never used
remained the same as in 1973, more students were smoking in 1977 than in
1973. This was due to a significant decrease over the four years in the
number of students who had given up smoking. In addition, there was a
large increase in the number of students who smoked on most days (Open
Exhibit 525).
A77
Table III.2 : Smoking Habits of Fourth Form Studentsi in NSW over Time
Never Used Given Up
Less than
Monthly Monthly Weekly Most
Days Current User (a)
(%) (%) (%) (°/o) (%) (%) (%)
1973 21.1 38.1 5.7 5.2 11.2 18.8 40.9
1977 21.2 29.7 4.6 4.2 9.8 30.6 49.2
(a) This column is the sum of the previous four columns.
(Open Exhibit 525)
The above survey results indicate that not only is tobacco smoking
prevalent throughout the adult community, it is also very common amongst high school students. This is despite the warnings from various sources that smoking is a health hazard.
ALCOHOL
The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its 1977 report
'Drug Problems in Australia ---an intoxicated society?', stated:
Alcohol is the major drug of abuse in Australia. It now
constitutes a problem of epidemic proportions.
(Open Exhibit 379)
The following facts were given in evidence to substantiate this
claim. Souces included the Commonwealth Department of Health and the
report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare.
- In the financial year 1977--78, Australians consumed almost 19
million litres of spirits, 202 million litres of wine and 1950
million litres of beer at a cost of $3300 million.
- From 1968 to 1978 the per capita increase in the consumption of beer
was 18 per cent, of wine 88 per cent and of spirits 44 per cent.
- Over 250 000 Australians can be classified as alcoholics.
- 1 200 000 Australians are affected personally or in their family
situations by the abuse of alcohol.
- Alcohol has been a major factor causing the deaths of over 30 000
Australians in the last ten years.
- One in every five hospital beds is occupied by a person suffering
from the adverse effects of alcohol.
- Some 73 per cent of the men who have committed a violent crime had
been drinking prior to the commission of the crime.
- Alcohol is associated with half the serious crime in Australia.
A78
- Alcoholism among the young is increasing dramatically.
The results of several surveys which have examined the drinking
habits of Australians support the contention that alcohol is an integral part of the lives of many Australians. The Australian National
University Canberra p o p ulation survey of 1978 (Survey 9) found that 97
per cent of male respondents and 88 per cent of female respondents had
drunk alcohol on at least one occasion. Similar results were obtained
by a survey conducted in the Sydney suburb of Manly in 1971 (Survey 10)
and a 1974 survey of Hobart women (Survey 11). The results of these
surveys indicated that approximately 90 per cent of respondents had
continued to use alcohol to the date of the survey. The results agreed
with several other surveys which found that between 70 and 80 per cent
of women and between 80 and 90 per cent of me n currently drank alcohol.
All surveys found that more men drank alcohol than w o m e n---and that
men drank more often as well as drinking larger amounts. This
difference b etween the sexes can be illustrated by the following
estimates drawn from the previously mentioned Australian Bureau of
Statistics survey of 1977 of the Australian population over 18 (Survey
1 ) :
- 75 per cent of all males (i.e. 3.4 million Australians) but only 49
p e r cent of all females (i.e. 2.3 million Australians) had used
alcohol in the week prior to the survey;
- 4.2 per cent of all males (representing 5.5 per cent of male
drinkers) but only 0.2 per cent of all females (0.5 per cent of
female drinkers) were classed as heavy or very heavy d r i n k e r s . That
is, they drank more than 80 grams of alcohol per day. (This is
equivalent to b etween eight and nine nips of spirits, 10 two-ounce
glasses of fortified w i n e , 1.1 bottles of table wine or seven 10-
ounce glasses of b e e r ) .
This last result also indicates that alcohol has become a way of
life for a considerable number of Australians. This is supported by
several surveys which found that between 10 to 20 per cent of adults
questioned, drank alcohol each and every day.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey also examined the
relationship between age, o c c u p a t i o n , State of residence and alcohol
consumption. Age had little effect on drinking patterns either in terms of those who were heavy drinkers or those who drank alcohol generally.
The survey did show a decrease in both the proportion of heavy drinkers
and drinkers in general after the age of 65. As in the case of smoking,
this could be due to the death of heavy drinkers and the giving-up of
drinking by the elderly for health and financial reasons.
Male drinking patterns did not vary greatly with occupation. A
higher proportion of females employed in clerical, administrative,
e x e c u t i v e , m a n a g e r i a l , professional and technical occupations drank
alcohol than those employed in other areas.
A79
There were considerably more drinkers on a per capita basis in the
A u s tralian Capital Territory, Western Australia and the Northern
T e rritory than in the other States. The trend was particularly
pronounced in the case of women: 72 per cent of women in the Australian
Capital Territory drank alcohol in the week prior to the survey compared wi t h the national average of 49 per cent.
Several surveys have examined the alcohol consumption of high school students. The results of the 1973--74 Australian National University
Drug Education Project survey of A.C.T. secondary students (Survey 4)
are summarised in Table III.3. This survey showed a steady increase of
use from Form One to Form Six: only five out of 20 Form One boys drank
alcohol compared with 17 out of 20 Form Six boys. In addition, more
boys drank than girls.
Table III.3 : Use of Alcohol by Boys and Girls at A.C.T. Secondary
Schools in 1974
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6
(%) (%) (%) (.%) (%) (%)
Boys 24.3 37.5 49.7 61.8 75.3 84.6
Girls 14.9 28.4 43.7 52.1 69.0 77.0
(Open Exhibit 194, PP 4.3-- 4.4)
Results indicating slightly higher use were obtained in the 1972
survey 'Drug Use by the Young Population of Melbourne1 and the
corresponding 1974 Ballarat study (Surveys 5 and 6). These surveys also examined the frequency of use and the quantity of alcohol consumed by
students. In Form Five, in Ballarat, one in five students reported a
rate of consumption of at least five drinks most weekends or most d a y s ,
or of at least 10 drinks on most drinking days. In Melbourne, two years
earlier, this was true of one in six Fifth Form students.
A similar extent of drinking was revealed by a 1976 study undertaken for the Child Health Committee in New South Wales (Survey 12). This
survey reported that 33 per cent of male high school students and 22 per
cent of females claimed to have drunk alcohol at least once a week.
Two surveys previously mentioned, the NSW Health Commission survey of 1977 (Survey 7) and the survey entitled 'Monitoring Drug Use in NSW'
of 1973 (Survey 8), provided a comparison of the drinking habits of
Fourth Form students in those years. Results shown in Table III.4
indicated that the proportion of students who had never drunk alcohol
had decreased in the four years as had those who said they had stopped
drinking. On the other hand, the number of students drinking most days
had more than doubled during the p e r i o d .
A80
Table III.4: Drinking Habits of Fourth Form Students in NSW (1973 and 1974)
Never Given Less than Monthly Weekly Most Current
Used Up Monthly Days Use(a)
(%) « ) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1973 11.4 12.8 19.7 24.7 26.1 5.2 75.7
1977 5.6 8.9 16.6 31.1 25.1 12.5 85.3
(a) This column is a sum of the previous four columns.
(Open Exhibit 525)
The results indicated that not only is alcohol an integral part of
the lives of most Australian a d u l t s , but that this relationship is fully established during adolescence.
OVER THE COUNTER DRUGS
Evidence indicated that several types of drugs which can be obtained from a pharmacist without a doctor's prescription (that is, available
over the counter) are currently being abused. These drugs include some
proprietary oral analgesics, preparations containing chloral hydrate, various types of cough m i x t u r e s , various antihistamine preparations, and weight reducing pills .
These last three groups of drugs are frequently taken in large
quantities b y young people. Analgesics and the chloral hydrate
preparations, however, are more often misused b y older p e o p l e---in
particular, middle aged women.
The abuse of some of these drugs is further discussed below.
Proprietary Oral Analgesics
The Analgesic Sub-Committee of the Australasian Society of
N e p hrology and the Australian Kidney Foundation regard non-narcotic, p r o p rietary oral analgesics, such as headache powders and tablets, as
being so commonly abused in Australia that it has placed them fourth to
alcohol, tobacco and sedatives in a list of Australia's most harmful
addictive drugs (OT 10597). Analgesic abuse is considered to be serious because of the connection between the prolonged use of these drugs and
such diseases as analgesic nephropathy.
Several surveys such as the previously mentioned survey of Hobart
wo m e n (Survey 11) and a series of surveys published in the Australian
Medical Journal (Surveys 13a to 13 f ), have examined the use of
analgesics. Their results indicate that excessive analgesic abuse is a pr o b l e m only in certain sections of the community. Dr J. H. Stewart of
the Analgesic Sub-Committee summarised the geographic results of these surveys in his evidence to the Commission in the following words:
A81
Some 16% of the adult f e m a l e , and rather more than 10% of the
adult male population of Queensland take analgesics every day. The rate of abuse falls, and the female preponderance
disappears as one moves around Australia in a clockwise
direction through New South Wales, the Australian Capital
Territory, Victoria and Tasmania to Western A u s t r a l i a , where no more than 3% of the adult population of a provincial town were
found to take analgesics r e g u l a r l y . .
(0T 10598)
Dr Stewart noted that in the three most populous States of New South
Wales, Victoria and Queensland, there was no apparent differences in
usage between m e t r opolian and rural areas (0T 10599).
Table III.5 . which relates the relative size of State populations to the total national sales of proprietary oral analgesics in pharmacies
and food stores, also indicates a predominance of analgesic abuse in
Queensland and N e w South Wales. Pharmacy and food store sales represent 60 per cent of all analgesic powders and 88 per cent of all analgesic
tablets sold in Australia, and the figures show that both Queensland and N S W have their proportions of sales well above their proportion of the
national population.
Table III.5 also shows that the sale of powders is very m uch a
phenomenon of Queensland and New South Wales. These two States account
for 87 per cent of all pharmacy and food store sales of powders but have
only 52 per cent of Australia's population.
Table III.5: Proprietary Oral Analgesics, Sales related to State
Population
(National Chemist and Food S t o r e s ; Other Outlets not included)
% of % of % of % of
national national national total
population sales, s a l e s , national
tablets powders sales
Queensland (incl. Northern Territory) 15.0 17.2 34.5 24.5
N S W (incl. A.C.T.) 37.2 38.0 52.8 44.2
Victoria 27.5 25.1 5.3 16.7
Tasmania 3.1 2.8 0.6 2.0
South Australia 9.2 9.8 4.0 7.3
Western Australia 8.0 7.1 2.8 5.3
Total 100 100 100 100
(Source: 'Drug Problems in A u s tralia---an intoxicated
Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare 1977).
A82
Table III.6 . which compares the consumption of powders and tablets
in the various States, again illustrates the preference for powders in
Queensland and New South Wales. It also reflects findings that aspirin
(a 's i n g l e ' a n a l g e s i c , consisting of only one analgesic component) is
the analgesic most used in V i c t o r i a , T a s m a n i a , South Australia and
Western Australia, whereas 'compound' analgesic p o w d e r s---those
containing more than one analgesic component---are most commonly used in Queensland and New South Wales.
Table III.6 also suggests that compound analgesic powders are not
merely substitutes for other analgesics in Queensland and New South
Wales, but largely represent consumption in excess of Australia's known overall level of analgesic u s e , which is high by world standards.
Table III.6 Proprietary Oral Analgesics, Consumption in Australian
States
(Expressed in Arbitrary Units per head of population)
Tablets Powders
Queensland (incl.
N orthern Territory 64.2 99.1
NS W (incl. A . C . T . ) 55.8 63.0
Victoria 52.2 8.5
Tasmania 55.4 9.1
South Australia 60.0 19.4
Wes t e r n Australia 50.4 15.9
( S o u r c e : 1 Drug Problems in A u s t r a l i a---an intoxicated s o c i e t y ? '---Report by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, 1977).
Evidence indicated that the vast majority of women who develop
analgesic kidney diseases as a result of analgesic a b u s e , were poorly
educated and from lower socio-economic g r o u p s . Typically, these women had problems such as a large family, isolation, marital difficulties and serious economic hardship. Consequently they took large quantities of analgesic c o m p o u n d s , which are relatively cheap, as a prop to assist
them to cope with family stress and intolerable social situations.
Surveys suggested abusers take the first dose to 'get started in the
morning' and then take several doses at regular intervals to see them
through the day.
The relationship between abuse and low socio-economic groups was
supported by a 1975 survey of the Aboriginal population of a country
town in New South Wales (Survey 14). This survey recorded a
considerably higher prevalence of daily analgesic consumption than any other Australian survey. On the day of the study, 45 per cent of women
and 26 per cent of men over 15 had consumed at least one analgesic
preparation. From other o b s e r v a t i o n s , the survey researchers considered
A83
that this was a gross underestimate of the proportion of the community
i n v o l v e d . The number of powders taken on the survey day ranged from one
to 24 (OT 3743).
This result is in stark contrast to the findings of the Australian
Health Survey of 1977 â 1978 (Survey 15) which found that 24 per cent
of females and 16 per cent of males aged 15 and over had used at least
one common pain reliever in the two days prior to the interview.
Evidence indicated that administration of analgesics to young babies was quite common. Dr T. G. C. Murrell and Dr J. R. Moss reported that
in a survey of Adelaide babies in 1974 (Survey 16), 66 per cent of
babies had been given an analgesic during their first six months of life
(OT 7376).
The reliance of parents on these drugs was further shown by the
Australian Health Survey of 1977 â 1978 (Survey 15) which found that 11.0 per cent of girls under five years of age and 9.6 per cent of boys under
five had been given common pain relievers during the two days prior to
the survey. The incidence of use decreased in the 5 to 14 age g r o u p ,
where 7.2 per cent of girls and 6.4 per cent of boys had used a common
pain reliever in the two d a y s .
Surveys of high school students also found considerable use of
analgesics. The 1974 Australian National University Drug Education
Project study of A.C.T. high school students (Survey 4) found that use
generally increased by grade from Form One to Form Six and that a higher
proportion of girls used these drugs compared to boys. The detailed
findings of this study are set out in Table 111.7. (The survey did not
ask respondents if the analgesics were taken to relieve pain or if it
had become a habit).
Table III.7: Use of Minor Analgesics by A.C.T. Secondary School
Students in 1974.
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6
(%) « ) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Boys 17.1 21.7 16.9 21.4 25.7 21.1
Girls 27.0 36.5 38.9 45.3 42.9 50.3
(Open Exhibit 194, pp 4 .3-4 . 4 )
Four of the surveys already mentioned-- -the 1971 â 73 'Monitoring
Drug Use in N S W 1 (Survey 8) survey and the 1977 follow-up NSW study
(Survey 7) , the 1972 survey 'Drug Use of the Young Population of
M e l b o u r n e ' (Survey 5) and the corresponding 1974 Ballarat survey (Survey 6)---investigated frequency of use of analgesics.
The NSW studies showed a decrease in the proportion of students who
used analgesics over the four years 1973 to 1977. In 1977, 10 per cent
A84
of students used analgesics weekly and 1.4 per cent used them on most
days.
Different results were obtained from the Victorian studies.
Approximately 5 per cent of Form Five students in both Ballarat and
Melbourne used painkillers on most days of the week. A mu c h larger
proportion of F o r m Three students in Ballarat (11 per cent) used
analgesics daily. These figures were considerably higher than the NS W
results. But, the V i c t o r i a n studies also found lower levels of weekly
use than in N S W (approximately 7.0 per cent of F o r m Five students in
both Melbourne and Ballarat and 4.6 per cent of Form Three students in
B a l l a r a t ) .
The V i c torian surveys also examined the use of analgesics by
tertiary students. Both weekly and daily usage were considerably lower amongst tertiary students than high school s t u d e n t s . These results
could reinforce the earlier proposition that excessive analgesic use was particularly prevalent amongst the poorly educated and lower so c i o Â
economic g r o u p .
In summary, evidence clearly showed many Australians turn to the
easily accessible, p r o p rietary oral analgesics to help alleviate their problems, and that the expectations of relief offered by these drugs is
so appealing, ma n y Australians cannot face the day without their u s e .
Cough Mixtures
A number of witnesses, including several p h a r m a c i s t s , were concerned at the large quantities of certain cough mixtures taken by young people. The mixtures most commonly abused generally contained a derivative of
codeine either alone or in combination with an antihistamine or an
ephedrine c o m p o u n d .
Witnesses from the Health Commission of New South Wales commented in evidence to the Commission in August 1979 that until m i d - 1978 they had
received only intermittent reports of cough mixture a b u s e . Since then, h o w e v e r , the p roblem had e s c alated---so m u c h so that the President of
the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia had issued a warning to ensure
professional control over the sale of these preparations. Similar
evidence of an increase in the abuse of these preparations amongst young people was given in confidential evidence by a Tasmanian pharmacist.
Because the desired drug was only present in the cough mixtures in
fairly low concentrations, the users consumed large quantities to obtain the desired e f f e c t . Examples of abuse given in confidential and open
evidence included:
- one young bo y who drank 100 millilitres at a time, the recommended
adult dose being 10 m i l l i l i t r e s ;
A85
- school children who drank up to four bottles each per day, each
bottle containing 125 millilitres;
- one young ma n who had developed a habit of consuming two litres
every week (OT 1209);
- one pharmacist in NS W who sold 2900 bottles of cough mixture in
summer when the incidence of coughs and colds would have been almost
n o n - e x i s t e n t .
Evidence indicated that the problem of cough mixture abuse was
restricted to the 12 to 25 year age g r o u p , with a predominance among
school children and unemployed youths. Witnesses from the Health
Commission of Ne w South Wales commented in confidence that whilst the
p roblem was p a r t i cularly noticeable in the Western Suburbs of Sydney,
children from other areas and a variety of socio-economic groups were
also involved. They also commented that school children mainly drank
these mixtures during the school holidays.
Witnesses commented that the m a jority of users simply purchased
their supplies from local pharmacies, without difficulty.
Evidence indicated that two reasons for the popularity of these
preparations were the ready availability---there are no age restrictions on pharmacy c u s t o m e r s---and the comparatively low cost. One witness, a
social worker in Victoria, explained in confidential session that at
approximately $3 a bottle, these cough mixtures were cheaper means than alcohol of achieving e u p h o r i a .
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
To complete the picture of legal drug use by Australians the use of
prescription drugs must be considered. In the year ended 30 June 1979,
almost 92.8 m illion prescriptions were dispensed under the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The cost of these prescriptions totalled over $380 million (Commonwealth Department of Health).
Although the m ajority of these drugs would be used for medicinal
purposes, these consumption figures further indicate the reliance of
Australians on drugs to solve their p r o b l e m s .
The legal drugs most often abused are stimulants, antidepressants, t r a n q u i l l i s e r s , hypno-sedatives and the narcotics. In the financial
year 1978--79 approximately 4.3 million prescriptions for
tranquillisers, 2.9 million prescriptions for sedatives and hypnotics, 3.4 million prescriptions for antidepressants and over 300 000
prescriptions for narcotics were dispensed under the PBS in Australia. Together these drugs represented almost 12 per cent of all prescriptions under the PBS in this period. (See Table I I I â 8)
A86
Table III.8:
Volume of PBS Prescriptions for some Classes of Drugs in 1978--79.
N o . of Percentage of
Prescriptions all PBS
Prescriptions
Antidepressants 3 400 000 3.7
Hypnotics and Sedatives 2 900 000 3.1
Tranquillisers 4 300 000 4.6
Narcotics 300 000 .3
Sub-total of these drugs 10 900 000 11.7
Total of all PBS Prescriptions 92 800 000 100.0
(Source: Commonwealth Department of Health)
The usage of each of these types of drugs is further discussed
below. Unfortunately, statistics on the precise quantities used are not available for each type of drug listed a b o v e . The amount of information
available on the levels of use is affected by the classification of the
d r u g . For exam p l e , all commercial transactions of narcotics and a few
selected drugs which are listed in Schedule 8 are monitored by the
Commonwealth Department of Health under its Drugs of Dependence
Monitoring System. This system provides detailed consumption figures for the particular drugs covered.
For the other drugs not monitored, little information is available. In many cases, total consumption and import statistics are not available in a consolidated form. The only accurate statistics available are the
number of prescriptions dispensed under the Pharmaceutical Benefits
S c h e m e . However, not all drugs are covered by the S c h e m e . Furthermore,
the statistics for those drugs listed do not include all quantities of
that drug dispensed. For example, they do not cover quantities
prescribed privately by a doctor. A number of drugs, in particular the
barbiturates, diazepam, oxazepam and nitrazepam, can be cheaper when
privately prescribed than under the Scheme. Accordingly, the quantities privately prescribed may be quite considerable ---especially for the
minor tranquillisers and the hypno-sedatives. As a result of this, a
decline in PBS prescribing may simply reflect the lower costs of private prescriptions rather than a decrease in use of the drug.
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Inquiry estimated in its August 1979 report that approximately 90 per cent of all non-hospital
prescriptions dispensed in Australia were covered under the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The ratio of PBS to private prescribing varies, however, from drug to drug, depending on comparative costs.
A87
The Commission also investigated survey results as a possible means of estimating the use of prescription drugs. It found, however, that
such surveys had been conducted only infrequently and inevitably
suffered from the problem that the number of users reported was small.
Because the information available on drug consumption covers all
types of us e---i .e ., it includes quantities used for medicinal purposes as well as amounts abused the Commission has not been able to
establish levels of abuse for any of these d r u g s . It can only reiterate
that several witnesses presumed that the drugs most often used are those drugs most often abused.
Stimulants
This category of drugs includes the amphetamines and cocaine.
Amphetamines were wi d e l y used in Australia in the 1960s for both medical and non-medical purposes such as keeping awake, increasing athletic
performance or simply for 'kicks'. Rigid restrictions on the use of
amphetamines were introduced in the early 1970s and in 1979
dexamphetamine was the only drug of this group listed under the
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is listed on authority only for two
rare d i s o r d e r s .
The South A u s tralian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs stated in its 1979 report that non-PBS prescribing of amphetamines no longer occured. In addition, these drugs are not available over the
counter. T h u s , the medical use of these drugs is currently at a
minimum. To illustrate the dramatic decline in u s e , over 252 kg of
amphetamines were imported into Australia in 1968. In 1978, however,
Australians used only 1.7 kg of these drugs.
The restrictions on the medical use of amphetamines have also had
the effect of drastically reducing the amount of amphetamines used by
drug a b u s e r s . Witnesses including law enforcement officers pointed out that although abuse of these drugs was a problem in the late 1960s when
they were comparatively freely available legally, the illicit trade in these drugs had virtually dried up by the late 1970s. Evidence
indicated these drugs were no longer regarded as important in the 'drug
s c e n e '.
Cocaine was formerly used extensively in Australia to produce local anaesthesia, p a r t i cularly in dental surgery, but newer synthetic
compounds have now largely replaced cocaine in this field. It still has some use in eye surgery and in ear, nose and throat surgery but is being
superseded in these areas as well and the amounts now used are quite
s m a l l . The annual legal consumption of cocaine in Australia has
remained fairly steady at about 20 kg since 1970. Evidence indicated
that there is some limited trafficking in cocaine. In addition, some of
the synthetic replacements for cocaine (such as lignocaine) are diverted to the illicit market where they are represented as genuine cocaine.
A88
Antidepressants
Antidepressants entered the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as
unrestricted benefits in August 1970. A n tidepressant drugs in part have replaced the barbiturates, which were very popular in the 1 9 6 0 s , for the treatment of insomnia. As new drugs to the PBS, they not unexpectedly
showed a rapid increase in the volume prescribed until the financial
year 1975 â 76. Since then the volume of prescriptions has remained
fairly constant. In the twelve months to 30 June 1979, 3.4 million PBS
prescriptions for antidepressants were dispensed, almost 3.7 per cent of all PBS p r e s cribing in that financial year.
As a further indication of the popularity of these d r u g s ,
a m i t r i p t y l i n e , an a n t i d e s p r e s s a n t , was the sixteenth mo s t commonly
prescribed drug under the PBS in 1977--78 (the latest financial year for
which these statistics were a v a i l a b l e ) . Over 1.5 million prescriptions for the drug were dispensed in that period.
Hypnotics and Sedatives
PBS prescribing of hypnotics and sedatives (including the
barbiturates) has declined significantly since the late 1960s. The
overall level of PBS prescribing for these drugs at that time was about
5 million prescriptions per year but in 1 9 7 8 - - 7 9 , the number of PBS
prescriptions dropped to 2.9 million. This could be attributed to
decreases in the max i m u m quantity prescribed and increases in the
p atient contribution. Both these factors make it more attractive for
prescriptions for these items to be w ritten outside the Scheme. As
these drugs still accounted for 3.1 per cent of all PBS dispensing in
1 9 7 8 - - 7 9 , it was apparent large quantities were still being prescribed
despite the decline.
The South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs stated in its final report in April 1979 that a similar decline
had occurred in the sales of hypnotics and sedatives to retail
pharmacies (which includes private as well as PBS prescriptions). A
decline has also been evident in sales of proprietary lines which could
be termed hypnotics or sedatives but are available without a doctor's
p r e s c r i p t i o n .
Evidence indicated that the decline in the PBS prescribing of hypno- sedatives as a whole is largely due to the steady fall since 1967--68 in
the prescribing of barbiturates. But the opposite trend is apparent for nitrazepam (main brand name Mogadon) p r e s c r i b i n g . As an indication of
the popularity of this drug, over 2.2 million prescriptions were
dispensed under the PBS in 1977--78 making nitrazepam the seventh most
commonly prescribed PBS drug. If the number of prescriptions is
multiplied by the maximum quantity of tablets allowed for each
p r e s c ription (25 tablets), the PBS prescribed volume for 1977 â 78 was
approximately 55 mi l l i o n doses. This is equivalent to four tablets for
every person in A u s t r a l i a .
A89
In comparison, a barbiturate drug does not appear in the list of the
most commonly prescribed PBS drugs until position 62. This drug,
pentobarbitone sodium, accounted for over 360 000 PBS prescriptions in 1977--78. Statistics for total PBS barbiturate prescriptions for 1977â 78 were not available. But in the previous twelve month period 1976â
77, PBS barbiturate prescriptions totalled 1.1 million. Again the
Commission noted that this PBS figure underestimates the total volume of these drugs prescribed. Several forms and strengths are cheaper when
prescribed outside the Scheme.
Another indicator of the use of barbiturates in Australia is the
amount of these drugs imported. These imports have also declined
significantly in the 1970s. In 1970, these imports totalled
approximately 31 000 kg; but in 1976, they had dwindled to 6000 kg.
The Commission noted, however, that annual variation in imports is only a crude measure of use. They can readily be affected by stocks held
and in any case, do not correspond directly with annual consumption.
Qualified witnesses suggested that in line with the decline in the
overall consumption of barbiturates, the levels of both diversion to the illegal market and legal abuse of these drugs had also decreased
drastically since the late 1960s.
Another hypno-sedative which has given cause for concern is M a n d r a x , a combination of methaqualone and diphenhydramine. Mandrax has never
been available as a PBS benefit drug so there are no national figures
for the volume of prescriptions dispensed for this d r u g .
Since February 1978, consumption of methaqualone has been recorded by the Commonwealth Health Department's Drugs of Dependence Monitoring System. For the 11 months of that year, the System recorded a total of
937 kg of methaqualone base used in Australia.
Although it would appear that the legitimate sales of methaqualone products are d e c l i n i n g , the Commission noted law enforcement officers and health officials expressed increasing concern about the non-medical use of this d r u g .
The Commission's attention was drawn to another aspect of the use of hypno-sedatives that warrants discussion. As discussed in Part IV Term of Reference C, evidence indicated that the hypno-sedatives feature
prominently in overdose and suicide statistics. As no systematic
collection of overdose statistics is undertaken in Australia, the
Commission sought details of overdose cases from several hospitals.
In the majority of hospitals questioned, hypno-sedatives (in particular barbiturates and Mogadon and Mandrax) were the drugs most commonly
involved. For example, over 40 per cent of all overdose cases treated
at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney in 1977 had taken hy p n o -
s e d a t i v e s .
A90
Evidence of drug-related deaths was given in confidential session by a senior official of the Commonwealth Department of Health, who
discussed the results of a review of the Sydney Coroner's Reports for
the years 1972 to 1978. Here again, the hypno-sedatives were
prominently involved. In keeping with the general decline in the use of
barbiturates, deaths involving these drugs decreased markedly from a
peak of 141 in 1972 to 68 in 1978. Deaths involving hypno-sedatives
other than barbiturates showed no significant overall change although there was a peak in 1975 of 69. The annual figure usually varied
bet w e e n 30 to 50 deaths.
These figures on overdose cases and drug-related deaths could well
indicate that hypno-sedatives, one of the most frequently prescribed
groups of drugs in Australia, are also one of the most heavily abused.
Mi n o r Tranquillisers
No comprehensive statistics for the consumption of this class of
drugs were available to the Commission. In the year to 30 June 1979,
4.3 million prescriptions for tranquillisers were dispensed under the PBS, accounting for 4.6 per cent of all PBS prescriptions dispensed.
Although these figures also included prescriptions for the major
tranquillisers, a large proportion of these prescriptions were for minor tranquillisers. Two of these minor tranquillisers, diazepam (main brand name Valium) and oxazepam (main brand name Serepax) in 1977--78
accounted for over 3.7 million prescriptions. Diazepam which accounted for 2.3 million prescriptions, and oxazepam which accounted for 1.4
m illion prescriptions, were listed as sixth and 20th respectively in the list of drugs most commonly prescribed under the PBS in that year.
Again, as some forms and strengths of minor tranquillisers are less expensive when privately prescribed, considerable amounts m a y be
prescribed outside the PBS. Such amounts are not recorded.
The volume of prescriptions in Australia under the PBS for
tranquillisers in general showed a marked increase from 1969--70 to
1974--75 when almost 6.2 million prescriptions were dispensed.
(Diazepam was listed as a general benefit in December 1972). Since
then, however, the number of prescriptions have decreased until in
19 7 8 â 79, a total of 4.3 million were dispensed. Similar trends were
shown for the volume of PBS prescriptions for both diazepam and
oxazepam.
Evidence indicated that this downturn was not confined to PBS
prescriptions. The South Australian Royal Commission into the N o n Â
Medical Use of Drugs stated in its final report that manufacturers'
sales of minor tranquillisers to pharmacies had reached a peak in 1974
and had decreased since. These sales include private dispensing as well as that under the PBS.
A91
The Study Group of the Victorian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug
Dependence in its 1974 report (Open Exhibit 286) commented that one
apparent danger wi t h the minor tranquillisers was that the person for
whom the drugs were prescribed was using a chemical means of escaping
from tension or anxiety and so could be predisposed to becoming
p s ychologically dependent on them.
Not surprisingly, t h e r e f o r e , these drugs also feature prominently in overdose admissions to hospitals. For e x a m p l e , minor tranquillisers
were involved in over 29 per cent of overdose cases at Sydney's Prince
of Wales Hospital in 1977. The Sydney Coroner's Reports referred to
above indicate, however that the involvement of minor tranquillisers in drug-related deaths has d e c r e a s e d . These reports recorded 24 deaths
involving either these drugs or antidepressants in 1972 but only 9
deaths in 1978.
Narcotics
These drugs include pethidine, morphine, m e t h a d o n e , d e x t r o moramide, pentazocine and heroin. The major legal uses of narcotics are for
therapeutic p u r p o s e s , usually for the relief of severe pain. Some are
made legally available to drug-dependent p e r s o n s , mostly through
methadone treatment p r o g r a m s . Therapeutic use of narcotics is generally for short periods, although sometimes intensely for that period.
Controlled narcotics obtained on a doctor's prescription may be
improperly used for non-therapeutic purposes, either to support a user's drug dependence or for diversion to the illegal market. Methadone from
treatment programs ma y also be diverted.
Commonwealth Department of Health statistics indicate that the
volume of prescriptions dispensed under the PBS for narcotics in general increased from the mid 1960s until mid 1973 but have levelled off since. In 1976--77, 315 000 prescriptions for controlled narcotic analgesics were dispensed.
Statistics for the legal consumption of the major narcotic drugs
were supplied to the Commission by the Commonwealth Department of
Health. The 1978 data is summarised in Table III.9.
A92
Table III.9: Legal Consumption in 1978 of the
major Narcotic drugs
Base Drug Total Consumption
(kilograms)
Consumption (kilograms) per m illion people
Pethidine 309.4 21.7
Pentazocine 124.9 8.8
Morphine 58.0 4.1
Methadone 38.1 2.7
Dextromoramide 13.2 0.9
(Source: Commonwealth Department of Health)
These consumption statistics when compared with similar statistics for previous years indicate trends in the usage of these drugs by
A u s t r a l i a n s . These trends i n c l u d e :
* Pethidine consumption on a per capita basis has fluctuated
considerably since 1968 but has shown an overall tendency to
d e c r e a s e . In 1968, 24.8 kg were used per m illion Australians
(giving a total consumption of almost 300 kg). This had dropped to
21.7 kg per m illion people in 1978 (giving a total consumption of
309 kg).
* Pentazocine consumption has steadily increased since 1974 (the first ye a r for which statistics were available). In that year,
Australians used almost 101 kg of pentazocine (brand name Fortral) or on a per capita basis, 7.4 kg per million people. In 1978 almost
125 kgs were used or almost 8.8 kg per million people.
* Morphine consumption, on a per capita basis, has generally decreased since 1968 except for an upsurge in use in 1971. In 1968, 6.0 kg
were used per million Australians (giving a total consumption of
72.5 kg). In 1978, only 4.1 kg were used per million people (giving
a total consumption of 58 k g ) .
* Methadone consumption, expressed in terms of the base drug,
increased steadily to 1976 but levelled off in 1977 and 1978. In
1968, Australians used 18 kg of methadone base (or 1.5 kg per
m illion people); in 1978, Australians used 38 kg (or 2.7 kg per
m illion people). This increase is partly due to the commencement of
methadone treatment programs in the mid 1970s. Accordingly,
consumption of the syrup form (the form preferred by treatment
programs) has risen dramatically since 1974 (this is the first year
for wh i c h a detailed breakdown of methadone consumption statistics were a v a i l a b l e ) . In contrast, consumption of the tablet and ampoule forms of the drug has decreased since 1976. These decreases are
probably due to the April 1977 decision to restrict methadone under
the PBS to 1 disabling pain of short duration not responding to n o n Â
narcotic analgesics' and to measures taken by the States to increase control over methadone treatment programs and to encourage the use
of syrup.
* Dextromoramide (brand name Palfium) consumption has shown two
pe a k s---one occuring in 1970 and the other in 1977. In 1968,
A93
Australians used 8.5 kg (or 0.7 kg per million people) but in 1978,
this rose to 13 kg (or 0.9 kg per million A u s t r a l i a n s ) .
It is of interest to note that dextromoramide and methadone are the
drugs most often diverted to illegal use either by forging prescriptions or b y obtaining prescriptions under false p r e t e n c e s . One confidential witness estimated it was possible that in excess of half of the legally
prescribed dextromoramide and almost half of the methadone was going
into 1 addicts hands'.
Heroin
Heroin is not used for medicinal purposes in any State or Territory,
except Victoria. In Victoria, its use is restricted to the relief of
pain in terminal carcinoma cases and for obstetric use by certain
approved practitioners and only when they are associated with a major
hospital having a proper pharmacy department employing full time
p h a r m a c i s t s .
D r J. W. Ross, Senior Poisons Control Officer of the Victorian
Department of Health, estimated that from 1971 to 1977, approximately
6000 obstetric patients had b e e n treated with heroin (OT 9 1 1 9 - - 2 0 ) . He
stressed that as heroin had largely been withdrawn from retail
pharmacies, little was diverted to illicit use as a result of pharmacy
burglaries or armed h o l d - u p s .
OTHER SUBSTANCES ABUSED
Young people, in particular, have resorted to using several items
not normally considered as drugs to achieve a drugged effect. These
include nitrous oxide ('laughing gas'), amyl nitrite, aerosol sprays, glues, solvents and p e t r o l , all of which are 'sniffed'. Evidence
indicated that of these substances, g l u e , solvents and petrol posed
considerable problems. The other substances are usually used on an
experimental basis.
Witnesses commented that until recently, only a small number of
children were involved in glue sniffing---and then only on an irregular
b a s i s . Evidence in 1979, however, indicated that glue sniffing had
increased in p o p ularity until it now proved quite a problem amongst
certain y o u n g .
Glue sniffing was of particular concern for two reasons:
the toxic effects of the glue used could result in serious health
problems and even death; and
glue sniffing appeared to initiate violent c r i m e s .
A94
As with cough mixtures, those involved are usually children aged
between 6 and 16 years of age. Two attractions of the glues abused are
their ready availability and their low cost.
Petrol sniffing has developed into quite a problem especially
amongst certain sections of the Aboriginal community. The problem was
particularly noticeable in the Northern Territory where those involved were usually male Aboriginal children under 15 years of a g e , living away from E u ropean communities.
Examples of petrol and solvent sniffing in the Nor t h e r n Territory
given in both open and confidential sessions i n c l u d e d :
* About 300 petrol sniffers at Yirrkala and Elcho Island with 75 to
100 of these being 'heavy sniffers' who sniff petrol on a daily
basis and over long periods of time.
* A t Papunya boys aged 10 to 13 years sniffed petrol but only 5 to 6
were regarded as hard core (OT 9900).
* In 1978 at Maningrida there were about 50 Aboriginal children aged 9
to 14 years who sniffed petrol. This represented about 33 per cent
of that age group in the community. However, of those aged 8 to 19
years there was a list of 116 named as heavy users (OT 15716,21).
In 1974 a survey of alcohol and drug use among Queensland School
Children (Survey 17) showed 6.5 per cent of school students had used
inhalants. Of these 3.4 per cent were described as current users with
almost half of these inhaling more than once a month. The sex distribution showed 8.1 per cent of males and 4.9 per cent of females.Primary students reported higher incidences of sniffing than secondary s tudents.
A95
Annex III.l
Surveys on the Use of Drugs Referred to in Chapter 1.
1. 'Alcohol and Tobacco Consumption Patterns, February 1977', carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Open Exhibit 594).
2. Mental health survey carried out by the A.C.T. Health Service of the
Commonwealth Department of Health, 1971 (Open Exhibit 37).
3. 'Patterns of Tobacco Smoking in Australia. 2', N. J. Gray and D. J.
Hill (of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria), Medical Journal of
Australia, 1977 (2), 327 (Open Exhibit 172).
4. Australian National University Drug Education Project surveys of
A.C.T. secondary schools, Dr R. P. Irwin, 1973 to 1974 (Open Exhibit
194).
5. 'Drug Use by the Young Population of Melbo u r n e ', by J. Kurpinski and
A. Stoller, 1972 (Open Exhibit 182).
6. 1A Survey of Drug Use in a Rural City', by G. D. G r a v e s , 1974 (Open
Exhibit 183).
7. 'Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Use in NSW', G. E g g e r , R. A. Champion,
Division of Health Services Research, Health Commission of New South Wales, 1977 (Open Exhibit 525).
8. 'Monitoring Drug Use in NSW', D. S. Bell R. A. Champion and A. J. E.
R o w e , 1971 to 1973 (Open Exhibit 525).
9. Canberra Population survey carried out by the Australian National
University Survey Research C entre, 1978 (Open Exhibit 37).
10. 'Survey of Drug Use in the suburb of Manly, Sydney', A. G eorge, 1971
(Open Exhibit 183).
11. 'A Survey of Women and Drugs in H o b a r t ', D. Carington Smith, 1975
(OT 7455).
12 Study undertaken in NSW for the Child Health Committee, G. Egger et
al, 1976 (Open Exhibit 314).
13. Survey of analgesic consumption in:
(a) Brisbane, 1970 by Abrahams et al, Med. J. Aust, 2, 397.
(b) Sydney, 1972 by Gillies et al, Med. J. Aust, 1, 974.
(c) Sydney, 1976 by Reynolds et al, Med. J. Aust, 2, 782.
(d) Ca n b e r r a , 1973 by Hennessy et al, Med. J. Aust, 1, 721.
(e) Melbourne, 1973 by Ferguson, Med. J. Aust, 1, 1271.
(f) Busselton, WA, 1975 by Cullen and Woodings, Med. J. Aust, 2, 211.
(Open Exhibit 379)
14. A survey of the drug use by the aboriginal population of B o u r k e , by
M. Kamien, 1975 (Open Exhibit 37).
A96
15. 'Australian Health Survey 1977 â 1978' carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Open Exhibit 681).
16. A survey of the drugs used by babies in Adelaide 1974 by Dr T . G. C.
Murrell and Dr J. R. Moss (OT 7374).
17. 'Alcohol and Drug Use by Queensland School C h i l d r e n ' , 1974, T. J .
Turner and L. M c C l u r e , 1974 (Open Exhibits 155,156).
A97
A98
Chapter 2 Illegal U se of Drugs
This chapter discusses those drugs which are illegally u s e d , those
groups in the community most involved in the illegal use of drugs and
the various stages of illegal drug use. The extent to which drugs are
illegally used in the Australian community as a whole is discussed in
Part IV ---Term of Reference C.
For the purposes of this section illegal use is defined as the use
of any illegal drugs (e.g. cannabis, heroin) plus the use of any legal
drugs illegally obtained (e.g. from pharmacy robberies, forged
prescriptions, prescriptions obtained by false pretences or drugs bought from illegal drug dealers). Abuse of legal drugs, legally obtained, is
discussed under Part III ---Chapter 1 --- Legal Use of Drugs.
THE DRUGS ILLEGALLY USED
Evidence clearly established that:
* cannabis is the illegal drug most used in Australia --- its use is
widespread throughout the community and is increasing;
* heroin use is small in volume in comparison to cannabis but is
increasing;
* the legal narcotic drugs (e.g. dextromoramide, methadone and
pethidine) are popular alternatives to heroin, particularly in times of short supply and have the advantage of being readily available
(usually by obtaining prescriptions under false pretences or by
forgery);
* the use of LSD, which was very popular in the late 1960s and early
1970s has decreased and is now almost minimal;
* the use of cocaine although of relatively minor importance in the
late 1970s could become more important if overseas trends reach
Austr a l i a ;
* the illegal use of methaqualone, in particular Mandrax, has
increased; and
* amphetamines and barbiturates, both much abused in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, are not as popular now.
THE GROUPS IN THE COMMUNITY MOST INVOLVED
Some witnesses suggested that there may be some groups of the
community more susceptible to the illegal use of drugs than o t hers. The
Commission did not receive sufficient information to enable it to
pinpoint such g roups, but evidence did indicate that differences in
illegal use may exist between sexes, between different age g r o u p s ,
different types of young people, different socio-economic groups,
different States, different ethnic backgrounds and nationalities and different religions. Each of these areas is considered below.
A99
The major sources of information on those groups most involved in
illegal drug use a r e :
* drug sur v e y s----the drug surveys considered in this chapter are
listed in order of first appearance in Annex I I I .2 at the end of
this c h a p t e r ;
* opinions of people professionally involved in the drug culture (e.g.
law enforcement officers, medical practitioners and other people involved in drug rehabilitation or counselling);
* police statistics relating to drug o f f e n c e s .
The Commission noted, however, that the information from these
sources needed to be interpreted with care.
Evidence suggested the results of many surveys carried out in
Australia in recent years needed to be treated with reservation because o f :
- differences in the quality of research design of the various
s u r v e y s ;
- differences in the adequacy of the samples and the sophistication
and accuracy with which the data was a n a l y s e d ;
- questionable reliability or validity of res p o n s e s .
The latter is particularly important in view of the illegality of
the activities que s t i o n e d---some individuals may not wish to divulge
their participation. Some qualified witnesses also suggested that it
was crucial to have a high response rate to such s u r v e y s , otherwise it
was possible that people who did not reply would have responded quite
differently to those who did reply.
Opinions from people professionally involved with illegal drug users often appeared to be only educated guesses.
Care should be exercised when attempting to apply trends in police
statistics to the general user community, because drug users charged by police may not be representative of the total user population. In
addition, drug offender statistics depend on several variables, only one of which is illegal drug u s e . Others include increased police activity, increased police expertise and changing drug policies of the various
police forces. These other variables could be at least partially
responsible for any trends in the drug charge statistics.
The Sexes
Witnesses agreed that more males than females illegally used d r u g s . This trend was apparent in the results of various surveys of drug use
A100
(Surveys 1 to 9 in Annex III.2 ), regardless of whether the survey
investigated the illegal use of drugs in general or specific drugs such
as c a n n a b i s , the narcotics or the h a l l u c i n o g e n s . It was also apparent
regardless of the survey sa m p l e---males were more involved in school
s u r v e y s , youth surveys and general p o p u lation s u r v e y s .
Generally the male to female ratio was between three to two and two
to o n e .
The trend was also evident in a 1975 study of drug dependent persons
receiving treatment under the New South Wales methadone p rogram (Survey 10). Seventy per cent of those surveyed were males. Commonwealth
Police statistics also showed that more men were charged for unlawful
p o s session or use/administration of drugs than women. The male to
female ratio in these statistics was significantly larger than in the
s u r v e y s---in 1978 the ratio was approximately 11:2.
Of those illegal drug users who gave evidence to the Commission, the male to female ratio was 7:2---this ratio figure lies between those of
the survey findings and the drug offender statistics. This may indicate that the various reasons for giving evidence may have been more coercive for males than females.
Age
Evidence from m a n y witnesses indicated that although the ages of
people who illegally used drugs ranged from 14 to over 60, the majority
were aged between 16 and 35. Within this r a n g e , the 18 to 24 year age
group predominated. It was also stated that social use of cannabis by
well educated people over the age of 30 was not unusual (OT 95).
Witnesses suggested that whilst cannabis was used by people of a
wide variety of ages, users of narcotics, in particular heroin, were
generally in the 17 to 26 year age group. This evidence supported the
results of the 1975 study of the patients on the New South Wales
methadone treatment p rogram (Survey 10). Eighty one per cent of the
people surveyed were aged between 19 and 26, with only 16 per cent over
26 years of age.
The predominance of young marihuana users was shown in the results
of three surveys (Surveys 3, 11, 12). Table I I I .10 shows some of the
results of the survey 1 Drug Use in Adelaide 1978' undertaken on behalf
of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs (Survey 3).
A101
TABLE III. 10 Use of Marihuana in Adelaide by Age Group, Adelaide 1978.
Sample Ever Never Past Past Year Used but
Base Used Used Month Not Past Not Past
Month Year
% % X X X
Age:
13-17 years (680) 13 87 7 4 2
18-24 years (644) 36 64 15 10 11
25-34 years (900) 18 82 5 4 9
35-60 years (277) 4 96 1 1 2
(Users in the 13 to 17 year age group were mainly young people who had
left school. Only 6 per cent of this group still at school had ever
used m a rihuana).
(Open Exhibit 672, page 63)
Table III.10 shows that of all the 18 to 24 year-olds questioned, 36
per cent had used marihuana at least o n c e . In addition, the survey also
found that 33 per cent of all 17 year-olds had tried marihuana.
Expressing these results in terms of all those respondents who had ever
used marihuana, over 60 per cent were aged between 17 and 24 (10 per
cent being 17 years of a g e ) .
A similar trend was found by the 1978 Australian National University Canberra population survey (Survey 11) and a survey carried out in 1971
in the Sydney suburb of Manly (Survey 12). The Manly survey, which was
carried out before the Adelaide survey and presumably when marihuana use was less c ommon, found that all respondents who had ever used marihuana
were aged between 17 and 29. The 19 to 21 age group contained the
highest proportion of people who had used marihuana at least o n c e .
Commonwealth Police statistics indicated a similar trend. The
statistics showed that for every year since 1973, over 70 per cent of
all drug offenders were aged between 18 and 25. Only approximately 5
per cent were over 30 years old.
This trend was also observed amongst those illegal drug users who
gave evidence to the Commission. Of those witnesses who gave their age, almost 90 per cent were under 30 years of a g e . Approximately 50 per
cent belonged to the 20 to 24 year age group and approximately 30 per
cent were aged between 25 and 29.
Various surveys questioned different types of young people in an
attempt to identify whether all young people or specific groups were
likely to be involved in illegal drug use. The results of these surveys
clearly showed an increase in illegal drug use from young people still
attending school to those who had left school.
A102
School Students
Survey results generally indicated that few school children
illegally used drugs. In particular, these surveys (Surveys 1, 2, 4, 5,
6) showed:
* approximately 1 to 2 per cent of all secondary students had tried
narcotics;
* approximately 2 to 3 per cent of all secondary students had tried
hallucinogens; and
* approximately 5 per cent of all secondary students had tried
ma r i h u a n a .
The surveys also found that the proportion of students who had
illegally used any one of these three types of drugs increased from the
lower to the upper g r a d e s . This was particularly noticeable for
marihuana. For example, the Alcohol and Drug Use by Queensland School
Children survey (Survey 6) of 1974 found that 2.2 per cent of Grade 6
students (generally 10â 11 years of age), 6.3 per cent of Grade 10
students and 17.6 per cent of Grade 12 students had used marihuana at
least o n c e . 1.4 per cent, 4.0 per cent and 11.5 per cent respectively
were current users of the drug. Similar results were obtained by the
Australian National University Drug Education Project survey of A.C.T. secondary school students (1973, 1974) (Survey 5).
Survey results (Surveys 4, 5, 13) also indicated that the number of
students who had illegally used drugs increased over time. This was
particularly true for m a r i h u a n a . For ex a m p l e , the A.C.T. survey (Survey 5) found that whilst 8.5 per cent of Sixth Form students in 1973 used
the drug, 10.0 per cent were users in 1974. Only 8.3 per cent of Fifth
Form students in 1973 (i.e. presumably the same students who were in
Sixth Form in 1974) were u s e r s . A similar trend for the years 1972,
1973 and 1977 amongst Fourth Form students was found by New South Wales
researchers (Surveys 4, 13).
Youths who have left School
Several surveys (Surveys 1, 2, 3, 4) found that illegal drug use was
far more prevalent amongst those who had left school than those still
attending. For example, the 1972 survey, 'Drug Use by the Young
Population of M e l b o u r n e ' (Survey 1) found that 27.4 per cent of tertiary students and 19.7 per cent of working youth had illegally used d r u g s ,
compared with 12.4 per cent of Fifth Form students.
The Melbourne survey indicated that amongst tertiary students, the incidence of ever having illegally used drugs was more common amongst
students attending a university or a college of advanced education (32
per cent) than amongst those at a nursing school (20 per cent) or those
at a teacher's college (15 per cent). A similar pattern was found among regular users (i.e. not experimental users) ---22 per cent, 17 per cent, 8 per cent and 6 per cent of students at these respective institutions
were in this category.
A103
For w orking y o u t h , use was more common among blue collar workers
than white collar w o r k e r s 29 per cent and 17 per cent respectively
had illegally used drugs at least once and 16 per cent and 12 per cent
respectively were considered regular u s e r s .
The survey found that marihuana was the drug most often used.
Accordingly, the trend in the extent of illegal use of drugs in general
was also apparent in the use of m a r i h u a n a . Twenty-three per cent of
tertiary students, 16 per cent of working youth and only 9 per cent of
Fifth Form students had ever used marihuana. A similar trend was found
in the use of hallucinogens (though the percentage of users was
substantially r e d u c e d ) , but not for narcotics.
Although a similar percentage of working youth and tertiary students had tried narcotics, all of such working youth were regular users but
only a few of the students used regularly---most students were only
experimental users.
Another survey, 1 Monitoring Drug Use in NSW', 1971 â 1973 (Survey 4), found that marihuana use was very prevalent amongst technical college
students and psychiatric n u r s e s . The highest incidence of use was
amongst art school students---64 per cent had tried m a r i h u a n a , whilst 48 per cent were current users. Again, this incidence of usage was
considerably higher than that found amongst school students.
The survey 1 Drug Use in Adelaide 1978' (Survey 3) found that the use
of marihuana by 13 to 17 year-olds was greatest among those who had left
school at 15 or less---40 per cent had tried marihuana at least once
compared with only 25 per cent of those who had left school at 16 or 17
years of a g e . In the 13 to 17 year age group the survey did not find
any significant difference between those who were in the work f o r c e ,
those who had left school but were not in the work force or those who
were looking for a j o b . Approximately 30 per cent of each group had at
least tried marihuana.
Socio-economic Groups
F e w Australian surveys have attempted to determine if there is a
connection b etween socio-economic background and the illegal use of
d r u g s . The results of the surveys which did examine this question are
generally inconclusive.
Two surveys, 'Drug Use by the Young Population of M e l b o u r n e 1 , 1972
(Survey 1) and 'Monitoring Drug Use in N S W ' , 1971 â 73 (Survey 4) found
that there was a higher rate of illegal drug use amongst middle class
children than working class c h i l d r e n .
This finding was supported by a 1973 study of the Melbourne drug
sub-culture (Survey 8). Here, 56 per cent of known drug users surveyed
had fathers who were classified as either professionals or
A104
p r o p r i e t o r s---a p r o p ortion significantly higher than in the general
p o p ulation (17 per cent). The survey found that the percentage of
middle class fathers decreased in proportion to the 'intensity' of drug use. That is, children of unskilled workers were more likely to become
intravenous users than their middle class counterparts. Thirty-four per cent of subjects whose fathers were white collar or blue collar workers
were intravenous users compared with only 19 per cent of the children of
professionals and proprietors.
However, a study of the young population of Ballarat in 1974 (Survey
2) found that the children of fathers from the lower socio-economic
class occupations showed a higher proportion of illegal drug use than
did those with fathers in middle class occupations.
The survey 'Drug Use in Adelaide 1978' (Survey 3) examined the
educational q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , employment status, income level and
occupation of adult respondents. It found no significant difference in reported marihuana usage between those respondents who had obtained a
formal qualification since leaving school and those who had not.
Approximately 20 per cent of both groups had tried the drug. Of those
adults who had obtained post-school qualifications, use was highest
amongst those people who had obtained university degrees. Twenty-nine per cent of this group reported experience with marihuana. The rate of
use was lowest amongst those who had obtained qualifications from no n  degree conferring tertiary institutions. Fourteen per cent of this
group reported use.
Among adults categorised according to their activities in the last
we e k before the Adelaide survey, results showed that persons looking for a job were more likely to have used marihuana than those in the
workforce; similarly persons who were not working because of permanent or temporary injury or an inability to work were also more likely to use
marihuana than persons looking for a job. Persons working in the home
were less likely to use marihuana than persons in all other activity
c a t e g o r i e s .
Income level and occupational status of adults did not appear to be
related to reported marihuana use in the Adelaide survey. Reported use
amongst adults in different income categories was similar, with the
exception of the 'no i n c o m e ' category, in which reported usage was only
half that reported in other categories. Reported use according to
occupational status also showed a degree of similarity, although there was a lower rate of reported use in the lower status groups compared
with the reported use of persons in the higher status g r o u p s .
Commission witnesses involved in the treatment or counselling of
drug users generally considered that illegal drug use was not restricted to any particular social background or occupation. Users came from all
socio-economic groups and from all walks of life, most witnesses
asserted. One witness, Dr M. J. Roland, a psychiatrist who is in charge
of Wistaria H o u s e , a rehabilitation centre in Sydney, qualified this
general opinion by commenting that although the heroin addicts at
A105
Wistaria House did come from a cross section of the community, most were from the lower socio-economic groups (DT 1-4512)..
Since 1977, an entirely different type of person-- the 'hoy next door'-- had been appearing for treatment for drug dependence, indicating that illegal drug use had become an integral part of the 'ordinary workaday world* of many young people., hr K . 5.. T. Dalton, Director of Addiction Services of the Westmead Community Centre for Alcohol and Drug Addicts, New South Wales, described these users as generally7 being male,;
about 23 years of age; with a School Certificate or a Higher School Certificate; with an apprenticeship completed; employed; married or in a defactD relationship, with one child; having a good relationship with his parents and having illegally used drugs for a period of three years. Often his employer did not know- of his dependence on drugs (DT
10713â 14)*
Similar evidence was received in confidence from witnesses from several other States including Queensland and Western Australia.
A further source of information on possible trends in the
occupations of drug users is the Commonwealth Police statistics relating to drug offenders* The occupations most commonly given by drug
offenders have remained relatively unchanged from 1974 to 1977 * Some of these are detailed for the year 1977 in Table III . 11. which also expresses the number of offenders in that particular occupation as a percentage of all offenders as well as a percentage of all people
employed in that occupation. (A similar tabulation for 1.978 was not possible as the Commonwealth Police ceased using the Australian Bureau of Statistics occupation classifications).
Of the drug offenders classified as Craftsmen/labourers in Table III,11, a significant number claimed to be labourers (217b people representing 17.9 per cent of all offenders).
The Commission noted that these occupations relate to those people charged by police for drug offences. . They may not be truly
representative of the user community in general*
As is the case for drug offenders, the two occupations most commonly claimed by users who gave evidence to the Commission were unskilled workers and unemployed.
States and Territories
Although several surveys have been carried out in different States, the Commission found that these surveys could not be used to determine if illegal drug use varied between States. The surveys were carried out in different years, questioned different population groups (e.g. some questioned school students, others young people and others a general community sample), and had widely varying methodologies.
A106
liable III- 11 (Occupations Most Often Claimed by Drug Offenders (1977)
Occupation
Number of % of all Offenders Offenders
Offenders as a % of all employed in that occupation
Craftsmen and Labourers 4686 38.6 0.26 (13 in every 5Q0D)
(excluding Miners)
Unemployed 2945 24-2 0.92 (46 in every 5000)
Service» Sport and Recreation
683 5.6 0,20 (ID in every 5000)
Professional and Technical
643 5.3 0.ID ( 5 in every 5000)
Students (Other than Primary and Secondary) 497 4.1 0.26 (13 in every 5000)
Armed Services 104 0-9 0-15 (7 .5 in every 5000.)
(Source.: Commonwealth Police Statistical Survey - 'Drug Abuse in Australia 1977'..)
Table 111.12
Number of Drug Offenders expressed as a percentage of Population (1978}
No. of Drug No. of Drug Offenders
Offenders per ID ODD people
New South Wales 4502 9
Victoria 1997 5
Queensland 1691 8
South Australia. 705 6
Western Australia 682 6
Tasmania 255 6
Northern Territory 100 ID
Australian Capital 138 7
Territory
Australia as a whole 10 070 7
(Sources: Draft Commonwealth Police Statistical Survey -'Drug fibuse in Australia 1978' and the Australian Year Book 1977-78.)
A107
In the Commission's hearings, witnesses generally agreed that
illegal drug use was a major problem in all States except T a s m a n i a .
They further suggested that the extent of the p roblem was related to
population, in that there were more illegal users in the more populated
States. Similarly, witnesses considered that Tasmania's small
population, together with its isolation from the mainland, were
significant factors in containing the extent of illegal drug use in that S t a t e .
This trend was also shown in the Commonwealth Police statistics
concerning the home State or Territorial address claimed by drug
o f f e n d e r s . These statistics showed more offenders claimed home
addresses in the more populated States. In 1978, almost 45 per cent of
all drug offenders claimed home addresses in New South Wales; almost 20
per cent claimed to be from Victoria whilst 17 per cent claimed they
were from Queensland. From 1974 to 1978, the statistics showed that the
proportion of offenders claiming to be from New South Wales and Western
Australia had generally decreased whilst the proportion claiming to be from Victoria, and Tasmania had increased.
A comparison by the Commission of the home address statistics with
the population statistics of the relevant State or Territory, is shown
in Table I I I . 12.
Commonwealth Police statistics also indicated that population
density may be related to the number of drug offenders on a regional
basis. In each State, more offenders came from the capital city than
from the other areas of that State.
Again, it must be stressed that the above figures deal only with
drug o f fenders---the same trends may not apply to the illegal drug user
population in general. The statistics may also reflect the size and
success of the various State and Territory Police Drug S q u a d s .
Ethnic Backgrounds and Nationalities
F e w surveys have considered ethnic background and nationality in
relation to illegal drug u s e . One survey which d i d , 'Monitoring Drug
Use in New South Wales', 1971 to 1973 (Survey 4), found that amongst
high school students, the father's country of origin bore no significant association with the illegal use of drugs (OT 14744). It must be
r e m e m b e r e d , however, that drug use by high school students appears to be significantly below that in the general community and that trends in the user population at large may not be apparent at the high school level.
The 1972 survey 'Drug Use by the Young Population of M e l b o u r n e '
(Survey 1) found that the highest rates of users were among those
respondents who came to Australia from the British Isles and western
Europe. In this category, almost 30 per cent reported they had used
illegal drugs at some t i m e . Other young imm i g r a n t s , including those
from southern and eastern Europe and Asia, reported illegal drug usage
A108
almost three times less frequently. A u stralian-born young people
indicated an incidence of usage mi d - w a y b etween the other two groups.
In line wi t h these r e s u l t s , there were very few southern and eastern
European immigrants in the Melbourne drug sub-culture survey sample
(Survey 8). There was, however, an over-representation of children of
eastern E u ropean parents (about 7 per cent). The proportion of subjects of southern Europe parentage was negligible (about 1.5 per c e n t ) .
Considerable evidence was received by the Commission concerning the involvement of some m igrant groups in the production and trafficking of illegal drugs, but few witnesses gave evidence about illegal drug use by migrant c o m m u n i t i e s . One witness from a migrant association who did
discuss the topic in confidential session commented that very few
migrants took 'h a r d 1 drugs. He considered that illegal drug use among
migrants was generally confined to 'softer' drugs, such as marihuana.
Commonwealth Police statistics show that the m a jority of drug
offenders charged by police are Australian citizens---that is, the
offenders were either born in Australia or had become naturalised
A u s t r a l i a n s . The actual proportion has remained fairly constant since 1975 and in 1978 was calculated as 80 per cent.
Of the remaining 20 per cent who had b e e n born in a foreign country
and were not naturalised at the time of their being c h a r g e d , 35 per cent
were British citizens and 24 per cent were New Zealand citizens. The
remaining 41 per cent of non-Australians came from a wide va r i e t y of
countries w i t h no one country being named as the home country by more
than 5 per cent of the offenders. The Commission noted that the
statistics take into consideration only the country of birth or
naturalisation. They do not discriminate between a tourist, a newly
arrived settler or a person who has been in Australia for many years.
Religions
F e w Australian surveys have explored the possibility of a
relationship between religion and illegal drug use and little evidence of this was received by the Commission. F u r t h e r , police statistics on
drug offenders do not record information on the religion of offenders.
Two Victorian surveys, a survey of the young population of Melbourne in 1972 and a corresponding 1974 survey of the young people of Ballarat
(Surveys 1 and 2) reported higher rates of illegal drug use among those
yo u n g people claiming either to have no religion or to be agnostics. In
Ballarat 29 per cent of this group reported having at least tried
illegal drugs in contrast to 17 per cent of Catholics and 15 per cent
of Protestants. In Melbourne the difference was even more pronounced.
H e r e , 40 per cent of those claiming to have no religion or to being
agnostics reported having illegally used drugs, compared with 14 per
cent saying they were Catholics and 16 per cent of P r o t e s t a n t s .
A109
The Melbourne survey also found that 29% of Jewish respondents had
illegally used d r u g s . This incidence was significantly lower than that of those professing to have no religion or to be an a g n o s t i c , but was
significantly higher than that of those who claimed to be Protestant or
C a t h o l i c .
Similar results were obtained in the 1973 study of the Melbourne
drug sub-culture (Survey 8) where two-thirds of the subjects---all
subjects illegally used drugs---claimed not to belong to any religious denomination. This proportion varied between users of different d r u g s . Seventy-six per cent of marihuana users claimed no religious beliefs
compared with only 49 per cent of intravenous users.
Results showing similar trends were found by the 1971 to 1973 survey 'Monitoring Drug Use in New South Wales' (Survey 4). This survey found
that 35. per cent of respondents who professed no religion had used
m a r i h u a n a , whilst 24 p e r cent of Jewish respondents and only 13 per cent
of Roman Catholics and 12.5 per cent of Protestants had used marihuana.
Summary
Evidence to the Commission repeatedly indicated that whilst in the early 1970s illegal drug use in Australia was confined to certain
community groups it had spread by 1979 to almost every social,
economic, cultural and age g r o u p . Some groups w e r e , however, more
involved in illegal drug use than others. In summary, evidence
indicated that:
more males illegally use drugs than fe m a l e s ;
the majority of illegal drug users are aged between 16 and 35 years,
with the largest proportion of users belonging to the 18 to 24 age
group;
the predominance of young users is particularly noticeable in
relation to heroin;
there is practically no illegal drug use in primary schools and
little in high schools, although an increasing percentage of older high school students have used marihuana at least once;
illegal drug use is far more prevalent amongst those who have left
school than those still attending. The major drug used is
marihuana, with narcotics used to a much lesser extent;
no relationship has been conclusively established between socio economic background (including such factors as the father's
occupation, own occupation, educational qualification, and income
level) and illegal drug u s e ;
almost one in every 100 people listed as unemployed and over one in
every 400 students (other than primary or secondary students) were
charged with a drug related offence in 1977;
A110
- illegal drug use may be less common amongst southern and eastern
E uropean migrants but more common amongst those from the British
Isles or w estern Europe wh e n compared with those people born in
A u s t r a l i a ;
- illegal drug use is more common amongst those who profess no
religion than amongst those of a particular faith.
STAGES OF ILLEGAL DRUG USE
Numerous witnesses suggested there are various stages of illegal
drug use. These stages m a y be in terms of intensity of use or in terms
of the type of drugs used.
The 1973 Report of the Canadian Commission of Inquiry into the N o n Â
Medical Use of Drugs (the Le Dain Commission) suggested that it was
helpful to employ the concept of a 'drug career' w h e n describing a
person's introduction and involvement in the use of drugs. This concept does not imply that there is a natural progression from one stage to the
next; it is me r e l y used as an historical description.
The Le Da i n Report identified the stages of this 'career' as:
- initial or experimental use (when people have not yet learned to use
and pos i t i v e l y interpret the effects of drugs);
- occasional use (characterised by episodic consumption dependent on
fortuitous developments such as sharing another user's drug and
beginning to ma s t e r methods of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ) ;
- regular use (which involves systematic consumption of a drug even if
the frequency of use is l o w ) .
The Le Da i n Re p o r t emphasised the importance of availability. It
suggested that experimental and occasional users generally have no
personal supplies of a drug whilst the regular user has a sufficient and
relatively continuous source of supply (Open Exhibit 22 pp 707--26).
Progression in Drug Types
Dr G. Milner, Director of the Victorian Alcoholics and Drug
Dependent Persons Services, suggested in evidence that there is
frequently a definite sequence of drugs used. He said that initially,
the drugs tended to be beer and wine. These were followed by either
cigarettes or hard liquor; then marihuana; then other 'soft' drugs such as barbiturates, amphetamines and tranquillisers; then LSD and other hallucinogens and finally, the 'hard' d r u g s---narcotics (in particular
heroin) and cocaine.
Dr Mi l n e r stressed that numerous people stopped at each of these
levels and that only a few arrived at the final stage of narcotic use.
Dr Milner added that progression to a higher ranked drug was directly
Alll
related to the intensity of use at the previous level (OT 2 6 0 5--06).
Other evidence indicated that this sequence is not the only possible
route to heroin use (e.g. a user may progress directly from marihuana to
heroin), but generally describes those steps often o b s e r v e d .
Results of the 1973 study of the Melbourne drug sub-culture (Survey
8) supported Dr Milner's assertion that progression to a higher ranked
drug was directly related to the intensity of use at the previous level.
The Melbourne study found a progression of intensity, both in terms of
frequency of marihuana use and the total number of occasions marihuana
had been u s e d , from those users who only used m a r i h u a n a , through those
who also used other 1 s o f t ' drugs (these were classed as 'multi-oral'
users) to those who used drugs intravenously.
The study also found that the earlier the age of commencing to smoke
m a r i h u a n a , the greater was the p o s s ibility of the subject progressing to the intravenous use of d r u g s . This trend was not significantly
influenced by the time which had elapsed since initial use of m a r i h u a n a . Of those who had used marihuana for at least three years and who had
started use before the age of 17 , 45 per cent were in the intravenous
use group, 40 per cent were in the multi-oral use group and only 14 per
cent had confined themselves to marihuana use.
The Commission noted that this survey was directed at people who had
a record of heavy illegal drug use and the results need not reflect
patterns of illegal use by the general population.
A widely held community belief which is associated with the
progression of use discussed above is that the use of marihuana leads to
the use of 'hard' drugs such as heroin. Evidence to the Commission
indicated that although many heroin users may have used marihuana
initially, many more marihuana users did not progress past that d r u g .
Qualified witnesses said that in pharmacological terms there did not
appear to be any causal relationship between the use of marihuana and
the use of heroin.
Several witnesses suggested that any progression which did occur was more likely to be due to social or personal factors such as peer group
pressure, the common sources of supply and the illegality of both d r u g s . In p a r t i c u l a r , a number of users who gave evidence in confidential
sessions explained that they had first tried heroin when their marihuana dealer had offered it as a substitute during a marihuana drought.
A112
ANNEX III.2
Surveys Referred to in Chapter 2
1. 'Drug Use b y the Young Population of M e l b o u r n e ', J. Krupinski and A.
Stoller, 1972 (Open Exhibit 182).
2. 'A Survey of Drug Use in a Rural City', G. D. G r a v e s , 1974 (Open
Exhibit 183)
3. 'D r u g Use in A delaide 1978', a survey carried out for the South
A u s t ralian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. (Open Exhibit 672).
4. 'Monitoring Drug Use in New South Wales', D. S. B e l l , R . A. Champion
and A. J . E. Rowe, 1971 to 1973 (Open Exhibit 525).
5. Australian National University Drug Education Project, survey of
A.C.T. secondary schools, Dr R. P. Irwin, 1973 to 1974 (Open Exhibit
194).
6. 'Alcohol and Drug Use by Queensland School Children', T. J. Turner
and L. McClure, 1974 (Open Exhibits 155, 156).
7. The Beach and School Surveys carried out by the Study Group of the
Barwon Regional Association for Alcohol and Drug Dependence, 1976
(Open Exhibit 185).
8. Survey of the Drug Sub Culture of Melbourne, J. Krupinski, 1973
(Open Exhibit 182).
9. 1 The A g e ' Opinion Poll, 1978 (Open Exhibit 680).
10. 'Characteristics of 635 addicts for which methadone was a u t h o r i s e d ' , I. Reynolds, D i vision of He a l t h Services Research, Health Commission of New South Wales, 1975 (OT 14740).
11. Canberra Population survey carried out by the Australian National
U n i versity Survey Research C e n t r e , 1978 (Open Exhibit 37).
12. 'Survey of Drug Use in the suburb of Manly, S y d n e y ' , A. G e o r g e , 1971
(Open Exhibit 182).
13. 'Adolescent Drug and Alcohol Use in N S W â , G. Egger and R. A.
Champion, Division of Health Services Research, Health Commission of Ne w South Wales, 1977 (Open Exhibit 525).
A113
M U
Chapter J Why People Use Drags
In this section of the Commission's report mention is made of the more important and more frequently mentioned non-medical factors that witnesses felt influenced people to either commence or continue the use of drugs. These include such factors as experimentation,, peer group pressure, mood altering influences, f a m i l y influences, cultural
influences, availability, advertising and religion.
It was quite clear from the evidence presented before the Commission that there was no one single factor that was both necessary and
sufficient for people to use drugs.. Furthermore, while factors such as experimentation, peer group pressure and availability appeared to play a significant part in the decision to commence the use of drugs, factors
such as mood altering, family and cultural influences tended to have more effect on the drug user to continue use..
EXPERIMENTATION
Perhaps the most frequent reason given by witnesses as a possible cause of drug use was curiosity leading to experimentation.
Experimentation and curiosity are regarded as being interchangeable terms for the purpose of this section.
In evidence before the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and incorporated as evidence in this
Commission, the Medical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Addicts Treatment Board of South Australia, Dr Gabrynowicz, said that people use drugs as an antidote for boredom, as a means of escaping pain or any disphoria, or through curiosity (OT 8725).
Another witness before the South. Australian Commission said that young drug users seemed to be fascinated with the knowledge of the effects and properties of drugs gained from their experiences with those drugs (OT 8105).
In evidence before the Commission Dr J. Krupinski, Director of Research, Mental Health Authority Institute of Victoria, presented a copy of the 1973 report 'Drug Use by the Young Population of Melbourne' (Open Exhibit 182). This report discussed a number of surveys,
including a 1973 survey of drug use by the Melbourne drug 'sub-culture', in which all respondents were illegal drug users In this survey, respondents were asked why they tried particular drugs. The survey results showed that the proportions of users quoting curiosity as a reason for first trying specific drugs were: marihuana 78.8 per cent, hallucinogens 79.8 per cent, stimulants 37.1 per cent, cocaine 63.5 per
cent, narcotics 62.1 per cent and barbiturates 27.3 per cent (Open Exhibit 182).
AILS
In a 1975 report entitled 1A Survey of Women and Drugs in H o b a r t ',
Mrs D. Ca r i n g t o n Smith found that curiosity was listed as a major reason
for c o m mencing the use of t o b a c c o , s t i m u l a n t s , marihuana and
h a l l u c i n o g e n s . Curiosity was mentioned by only 2.7 per cent of the
survey sample who used narcotics. The report was included in evidence
before the South Australian Commisson into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and sub s e q u e n t l y incorporated as evidence in this Commission (OT 7461,
7 4 6 4 â 6).
In evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, D e t e c t i v e Inspector T. W. Cashion presented the results of the Tasmanian D r u g Bureau's 1974--75 survey of 91 drug offenders. Curiosity was the
d o minant reason given by offenders (72.5 per cent) for commencing drug
use (Open Ex h i b i t 378, pages 1 9 3 2 - - 3 3 ) .
In a report to the New South Wales Catholic Social Welfare
C o m m i s s i o n entitled 'The Use of Drugs b y Students in Catholic Schools', Mr V. M. N esbitt quoted several local and overseas studies which
m e n t i o n e d curiosity as the main reason for taking d r u g s . These studies
included a Fi n n i s h survey involving 2702 pupils between 14 and 17 years
of age from 34 secondary schools where 65 per cent named curiosity as
the mo s t important reason for taking drugs. The report also mentions
that the U.S. Select Committee on Crime regarded curiosity as probably
one of the most important factors in the initial use of drugs (OT 14745,
14753).
E v i d e n c e extracted from the 1970 interim report of the Canadian
C o m m i s s i o n of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs mentioned that
there was at that time a fad for drug-taking and experimentation (Open
Ex h i b i t 21, page 223).
In the 1973 publ i c a t i o n 'The Use and Abuse of Drugs' prepared by the
D i v i s i o n of Health Education, Health Commission of New South Wales, it
was s u ggested that experimentation was a natural part of the normal
learning process and that some people had used it in an attempt to try
and d i s c o v e r by personal experience the effects of different d r u g s :
It is natural for all people to experiment. Unless we accept
wi t h o u t question what we read or are told, this is the main way
we learn. So it is natural that people will wish to experiment
wi t h drugs, to try and discover by personal experience the
effects of different drugs, particularly those which have some stimulant or depressant effect.
(Open Exhibit 666, page 18)
PEER GR O U P PRESSURE
W h i l e expe r i m e n t a t i o n m a y be the most important reason for first
using drugs the influence of pe e r group pressure was seen by many as the
next mo s t important reason.
A116
In their book entitled 'Drugs, Society and Personal C h o i c e 1 (Open
Exhibit 601), H. and 0. J. Kalant stated that the use of drugs was a
necessary condition for admission to some social g r o u p s . The authors
cited as examples the glass of beer at the hotel as being the 'admission
t i c k e t ' to the society of regular patrons and the link between marihuana and the youth culture.
Closely related to the use of drugs for facilitating social
interaction is their use as a necessary condition for admission to some social groups. A glass of beer at the pub has
traditionally been the 'admission t i c k e t ' to the society of
regular patrons. It provides the feeling of kinship which
unites a group of otherwise unrelated or unequal p e o p l e . In
the same way, the use of marihuana by ma n y young people in
North American society today appears to be related, at least in
part, to a desire to show that they belong to the youth
culture, as opposed to the orthodox culture of their parents.
(Open Exhibit 601, page 44)
The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's 1977 Report, 'Drug Problems in A u s t r a l i a---an intoxicated society?' (The Baume Report)
identified peer group pressure as the most important factor leading to
young people smoking (Open Exhibit 379, page 85).
In confidential evidence also presented to the South Australian
Royal Commission a psychologist provided data on the groups with whom
students preferred to communicate their worries. This showed that 38.7 per cent of all students (455) included in the study used a peer group
as the preferred communication a r e a . 40 p e r cent of tobacco users
turned to a peer group in comparison with 34.4 per cent of non-users.
The witness claimed that this peer group involvement could influence
youth to commence using t o b a c c o .
A similar pattern was reflected in data on students use of alcohol
with non-users reflecting a lower rate of p r eferred communication with peer groups at 24.6 per cent compared with users 41.1 per cent.
Another indicator of the influence of peer group pressure on the use
of alcohol was given in data included in the Que e n s l a n d Department of
Education's Report, 'Alcohol and Drug Use by Que e n s l a n d School C h i l d r e n ' (Volume 1) (Open Exhibit 155) wh i c h was included in evidence by Mr P . J .
Varley, a Research Officer from the D e p a r t m e n t . The data reproduced in
Table III.13 shows that by Grade 12 the pro p o r t i o n of students who would
use alcohol if it was offered to them by a friend was 43.5 per cent and
that an additional 42.5 per cent would consider u s e .
Dr J . H. Stewart who appeared on be h a l f of the Analgesics SubÂ
committee of the Australasian Society of N e p h r o l o g y and the Australian
Kidney Foundation claimed:
All 7
On leaving school, young wo m e n are encouraged by their
workmates to take powders to relieve the tedium of the job or
improve p e r f o r m a n c e , and the same remedy may be adopted later
to overcome the stress of running a household wi t h children and
the bor e d o m of suburban life.
(OT 10603)
Several witnesses commented on the influences of peer group pressure in a more general context. In a submission to the South Australian
Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and also incorporated as evidence in this Commission, Dr W. F . Salter, Superintendent of
Hillcrest Hospital stated:
Young people tend to be influenced to take drugs by group
p r e s s u r e .
(OT 8104)
This was supported in evidence by Dr P. J. J. O'Neill, Co-ordinator
of A d diction Services for the Hunter Health Region, Ne w South Wales
Health Commission, who claimed that peer group pressure is one of the
ma i n reasons why people started using d r u g s :
At the p r i m a r y level the p roblem lies in some faults in
s o c i e t y---...perhaps the excessive availability, perhaps the
excessive peer p attern and pressure to use...These factors
combine to cause some people to start running into strife...
(OT 11746â 47)
In the 1973 survey of the Melbourne drug sub-culture mentioned
earlier, the results indicate that conformity or peer group pressure
was one of the major reasons for trying specific d r u g s . The survey
results showed that the proportions of users quoting conformity as a
reason for first trying specific drugs were: marihuana 27.0 per cent,
hallucinogens 21.3 per cent, stimulants 17.4 per cent, cocaine 20.7 per c e n t , narcotics 18.5 per cent and barbiturates 7.6 per cent. The survey
report stated:
Conformity and availability were the two next most common
reasons for trying a particular drug, but they lagged far
behind curiosity in frequency.
. . .Although these figures could possibly have been exaggerated in using the chain interview m e t h o d , it is clear that,
although conformity did not play a dominant role as a cause of
drug use, those deeply involved in the drug scene were mixing
mainly amongst themselves. (Open Exhibit 182, page 76)
In a submission from the Victorian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug D e p e ndence Mr D. J. Travers claimed that many young people belong to a
sub-culture in w h i c h their group is the pivot and drug-taking the
reality. Some of the members saw the support of the group as more
important than the drugs (Open Exhibit 286, page 20).
A119
Other witnesses to mention peer group pressure as one of the main
causes of illicit drug taking included Dr C. Sprague from the
rehabilitation organisation GROW and Dr W. A. Spence, a Consultant
Specialist in A l c oholism and Drug Dependence for the New South Wales
Health Commission. Dr Spence's comments related solely to the abuse of
heroin.
.. .Most of the heroin addicts I have met had started at the age
of about 14, 15 or 16, while they were at high school with
their friends in g r o u p s ; they had picked up from their peer
group, with peer group pressure, a habit which gave them
pleasure, excitement and a change---a change of mood, a change
of themselves. When they became dependent on it, at times of
stress or tension they tended to use...
(OT 11284)
MOOD ALTERING INFLUENCES
The evidence before the Commission indicated that once having
commenced drug use only a small proportion of experimenters become
regular drug u s e r s . Important factors leading to continued drug use
were anxiety, loneliness, boredom and unhappiness.
In a submission made to the South Australian Royal Commission into
the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and incorporated into the evidence of this Commission, Ms N. C h a n t , executive assistant to the Secretary General of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), and Ms F. Hollier, a
researcher with ACOSS, claimed that the expansion of the pharmaceutical industry to cover problems such as anxiety, loneliness, boredom and
unhappiness has led to the opinion being reinforced that more and more
aspects of everyday human behaviour, interactions and conflicts can be cured by the use of drugs.They said:
Drugs are playing an increasingly important role in the health care of individuals in our society. The function of drugs is
the solution of medical problems. T h e r e f o r e , drugs can only
have a function to the extent that a particular problem can be
interpreted as m e d i c a l . The scope of medical problems has been expanded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, to include anxiety, loneliness, b o r e d o m , unhappiness etc.---all of which were considered, before the advent of drugs as part of the
everyday problems of life. Through this relabelling and
redefinition the production of a drug claiming specific
curative effects for almost any human condition is legitimized. This legitimacy is reinforced by physicians and patients who
are convinced that drug intervention is required in more and
more aspects of everyday human b e h a v i o u r , interactions and
c o n f l i c t s .
(OT 14554)
In their book entitled 'Drugs, Society and Personal C h o i c e ' (Open
Exhibit 601), H. and 0. J. Kalant argued that in some cases,
psychoactive drugs were used for reasons that may be medical in n a t u r e , without being prescribed by a doctor. The relief of tension and anxiety
A120
with alcohol was described as an example of the use of psychoactive
drugs for therapeutic r e a s o n s . The authors stated:
.. .most use of psychoactive drugs for such quasi-medical
purposes is less clearly recognised by the users themselves as
a form of treatment. Many people find themselves in chronic
states of depression, anxiety, b o r e d o m , over-aggressiveness, or other 'emotional u n - e a s e ' because of unsatisfactory situations at w o r k , at h o m e , or in relation to friends, f i n a n c e s , and
other aspects of everyday life. If they are unable to find
solutions to these problems, the temporary relief provided by
the use of drugs wh i c h alter their consciousness or mood may
make the continued use of these substances more and more
a t t r a c t i v e .
(Open Exhibit 601, page 50)
In other evidence also presented before the South Australian Royal
Commission into the Non-Medical Use of D r u g s , Dr V. Tottman, a medical
p r a c t i t i o n e r , commented:
...much non-medical use of drugs reflected not only man's
desire for pleasure through the medium of drug-taking, but also his need to diminish anxiety, tension, social and psychological i s o l a t i o n . (OT 7860)
Dr Tot t m a n added that ve r y many drugs were taken not by choice but
b ecause of a tremendous tension that drugs actually overcome. He said
he was par t i c u l a r l y concerned that the education system had little
emphasis on such things as parenting, communication skills and informed unbiased education on drug use (OT 7887).
The R e verend F. J. Nile, National Co-ordinator and State Director of the Aus t r a l i a n F e stival of Light felt that there were many different
p s y c h o logical reasons for people commencing use of sensual drugs:
People start using the sensual drugs for many different
p sychological reasons: to relieve anxiety or depression, to
escape the harshness of reality, for a thrill, or because of
social pressures. The motivations are often unconscious and
are highly i n d i v i d u a l .
(OT 10296)
This was supported in confidence by a witness involved in the
rehabilitation of drug users. He described the heavy heroin user as:
...emotionally immature, a dependent type personality who is
not capable at that time of really handling stress and strain
of the ordinary living, not capable of looking at the
actualities of reality.
(CT)
A121
Another witness who saw the use of drugs as a method of escaping tension and pain was the Reverend ft. Smith, a former executive officer of the Social Justice Committee from the Uniting Church of Australia The Reverend Smith in evidence to both the South Australian Royal Commission into the Son-Medical Use of Drugs and this Commission stated:
The main cause of drug use in our society lies in an underlying philosophy of life which has given rise to breakdown in
personal relationships, a loss of meaning and an escapist attitude towards tension m d pain. This philosophy is
unconsciously accepted by a large number in the community and is largely unchallenged.. (OT 7326)
A number of witnesses before both the South Australian Royal Commission and this Commission felt that boredom played a major part in people starting to use drugs. One witness, Dr W. F. Salter,
Superintendent of the Hillcrest Hospital in South Australia, said::
My experience of the things that encourage the use of drugs are boredom, failure of identity formation, alienation from the community and from family, absence of religious meaning to life and inability to deal with chronic depression and anxietv.
(OT 8106)
Finally, the results of the 1973 survey of the Melbourne drug sub culture cited earlier in this chapter, show quite clearly the dominance of mood altering influences such as excitement, mental stimulation and relaxation, as reasons for continued use of drugs. These results are
rep reduced in Table III.. 14.
Table III.14; Seasons for being a Drug User
Marijuana Multi-oral Intravenous users users users
% % %
Excitement 33.5 29.9 23.4
Mental Stimulation 20.1 23.8 11.7
Relaxation 13.9 6.2 2.2
Escape from self 2.5 7.1 15.6
To gain self knowledge 16.0 25.0 11.2
Other intrapersonal 3.1 5.2 12.9
Rebellion 7,7 7.4 £$..&
(Open Exhibit 182, page 77)
FAMILY ISFLUENCES
It was stated by a number of witnesses appearing before the
Commission that the family background of the user had influenced the commencement of drug use. However some witnesses thought that an addict was not necessarily a product of his or her borne environment. Dr J· 8 â
A122
Moss from the Foundation for Multi-Disciplinary Education in Community- Health and Dr T.. G. C.. Murrell, Department of Community- Medicine, University of Adelaide, in a joint statement to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs which was
incorporated as evidence in this Commission said parents may be educating their children in the use of drugs as a preferred method of coping:
If we look at the period of time from discharge from obstetric hospital to six months of age, we find that:;
31 per cent of babies had received sleeping medicines at some time;
66 per cent of babies had received analgesics at some time;
__ It is our belief that we are beginning to accumulate
evidence that drug giving by parents is for them a learned behaviour, that children are exposed to parental modelling of drug taking behaviour from an early age and we wonder whether in this way children, are being conditioned to :ααα-medicai' use
of drugs that may establish life-time patterns in which drugs may be a preferred method of coping. (OT 7376)
The Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, 'Drug Problems in Australia---an intoxicated society7 â, quoted evidence from a Royal College of Physicians of London 1977 report which claimed that parental example often leads children to develop a smoking habit:
Some children begin to smoke at 5 years of age, and it has been found that about one third of adult regular smokers began before they were 9.. About 80 per cent of children who smoke regularly continue to do so when they grow up..
(Open Exhibit 379, page 35)
The Senate report also claimed that a smoking parent had twice the chance of having a smoking child and a smoking older brother H a d twice the chance of having a smoking younger brother (Open Exhibit 179, page 85).
Mrs P. L. Searles from the Drug Users Parents Aid Foundation (BUPA) Ïη Victoria pointed out that each young person who had attended the 5UPA Foundation had had a background of family problems including divorce, alcoholism and lack of discipline. Mrs Searles comnented:
The conclusion put forward by the BUPA Foundation is that the problem of drug misuse stems from home environment pressures; this in turn is brought about by social pressures on the
parents.
(OT 3222)
AI23
In evidence also presented to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of D r u g s , one of the main reasons given for
starting to drink alcohol by respondents to D. Carington Smith's Î
Survey of Women and Drugs in H o b a r t â was the introduction to alcohol by
adults or family (OT 7462).
The influence of the home environment as far as the first use of
alcohol was concerned was shown quite clearly in the results of the
Queensland Department of Education's Report, 'Alcohol and Drug Use by
Queensland School Children' (Volume 1) (Open Exhibit 155). Table I I I .15 shows that almost 70 per cent of young school age alcohol users had
their first drink in the home.
The data in Table I I I .16 shows the growing influence of peer group
pressure on the older students in grade 12 with 23.9 per cent having
their first drink with friends. However the dominance of the parents
involvement was still evident.
In evidence also presented to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of D r u g s , Dr W. F. Salter, Medical
Superintendent of Hillcrest Hospital in South Australia felt that
rejection by their own family was just one of the many reasons why
people use drugs (OT 8105).
D r W. F. Salter's evidence was supported by the WHOS Fellowship
submission to this Commission which suggested that whilst a drug user
could be influenced by his or her environment, the home environment was
not the only force behind a person deciding to use d r u g s :
An addict can be affected by home environment, e.g. broken
h o m e , drinking parent, etc., but he is not necessarily a
product of this e n v i r o n m e n t . Many persons are blind to the
real causes of addiction because they look for external causes. Addiction comes from within. A n addict is an addict despite
his environment.
(OT 10078).
The results of the 1972 survey 'Drug Abuse by the Young Population
of M e l b o u r n e ' ^'suggest that the prevalence of drug use did not seem to
discriminate between intact and broken families. However the results
from the 1973 survey of the Melbourne drug sub-culture showed that,
while almost two-thirds (65.9 per cent) of those respondents with a non- disrupted family claimed that their parents were close to each other,
26.8 per cent admitted to an existing conflict. Unfortunately relevant information was not available for non-drug users but, as can be seen
from Table I I I . 17 the proportion of conflicted marriages increased with
the intensity of drug use.
A The res ults of this survey wer e published in the 1973 report of the
same title (Open Exhibit 182), mentioned previously.
A124
Table III.15
S i t u a t i o n in w h i c h D r i n k e r s h a d t h e i r F i r s t D r i n k
S i t u a t i o n :
G r a d e ( P e r c e n t a g e ) W e i g h t e d
T o t a l
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 P e r c e n t a g e
A t h o m e 7 9 . 5 7 0 . 4 6 7 . 1 7 0 . 1 6 0 . 8 6 9 . 2 6 7 . 0 6 8 . 3
A t a r e l a t i v e ' s
h o m e
4 . 6 5 . 6 1 . 6 5 . 1 7 . 0 5 . 5 4 . 0 4 . 9
A t a p a r t y 7 . 9 1 2 . 0 1 9 . 3 1 4 . 3 1 7 . 3 1 1 . 9 1 6 . 2 1 4 . 7
A t a f r i e n d ' s h o m e 1 . 3 1 . 4 3 . 2 3 . 7 4 . 3 3 . 0 5 . 1 3 . 2
In a c a r 2 . 0 2 . 3 1 . 2 2 . 7 1.2 0 . 9 0 . 5 1.7
A t a h o t e l 2 . 0 3 . 7 2 . 0 1 . 7 2 . 1 4 . 0 2 . 1 2 . 4
E l s e w h e r e 2 . 6 4 . 6 5 . 6 2 . 4 7 . 3 5 . 5 5 . 1 4 . 9
S a m p l e N 1 5 1 2 1 6 2 4 9 2 9 4 3 2 9 3 2 9 3 7 6 1 9 4 4
( S o u r c e : O p e n E x h i b i t 1 55, p a g e 43,.)
T a b l e I I I . 1 6
S o c i a l C o n t e x t o f F i r s t D r i n k
S o c i a l C o n t e x t
6 7
G r a d e
8
( P e r c e n t a g e )
9 10 11 12
W e i g h t e d
T o t a l
P e r c e n t a g e
P a r e n t s 8 5 . 9 7 5 . 3 6 9 . 2 6 9 . 9 6 2 . 7 7 0 . 1 6 7 . 9 7 0 . 6
O t h e r r e l a t i v e s 3 . 8 1 0 . 0 7 . 5 7 . 8 1 0 . 5 7 . 9 7 . 1 8 . 2
F r i e n d s o f m y o w n a g e 4 . 5 6 . 8 1 1 . 5 1 2 . 5 1 6 . 0 1 4 . 2 1 7 . 6 1 1 . 9
F r i e n d s o l d e r t h a n I 4 . 5 5 . 0 1 0 . 3 7 . 8 8 . 7 6 . 9 6 . 3 7 . 4
w a s
A l o n e 1 . 3 2 . 7 1 . 6 2 . 0 2 . 1 0 . 9 1 . 1 1 . 8
S a m p l e N 1 5 6 2 1 9 253 2 9 6 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 8 1 1 9 6 8
( S o u r c e : O p e n E x h i b i t 1 5 5 , p a g e 43.)
A125
Table III.17
P a r e n t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p a n d t h e I n t e n s i t y o f D r u g U s e (per 1 0 0
N o n - D i s r u p t e d F a m i l i e s )
P a r e n t a l R e l a t i o n s h i p
C l o s e a n d
H a r m o n i o u s
I n d i f f e r e n t C o n f l i c t e d T o t a l
No. % NO. % No. % No.
M a r i h u a n a u s e r s 113 7 2 . 0 9 5.7 35 2 2 . 3 157
M u l t i - o r a l u s e r s 1 9 0 6 9 . 3 17 6 . 2 67 2 4 . 5 2 7 4
I n t r a v e n o u s u s e r s 72 5 2 . 2 15 1 0 . 9 51 3 6 . 9 1 3 8
T o t a l D r u g s u b - c u l t u r e 3 7 5 6 5 . 9 41 7 . 3 153 2 6 . 8 5 6 9
( S o u r c e : O p e n E x h i b i t 1 8 2 , p a g e 66.)
T a b l e I I I . 18
R e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r e n t s b y t h e I n t e n s i t y o f D r u g U s e
D r u g U s e G r o u p
E x c e l l e n t a n d
G o o d
I n d i f f e r e n t
B a d a n d
E s t r a n g e d
N o t a p p l i c a b l e
o r n o t k n o w n
W i t h
F a t h e r
W i t h
M o t h e r
W i t h
F a t h e r
W i t h
M o t h e r
W i t h
F a t h e r
W i t h
M o t h e r
W i t h
F a t h e r
W i t h
M o t h e r
% % % % % % % %
M a r i h u a n a u s e r s 5 5 . 2 7 1 . 6 1 5 . 5 1 1 . 9 1 9 . 0 1 0.3 1 0 . 3 6.2
M u l t i - o r a l u s e r s 5 4 . 0 6 4 . 2 1 4 . 2 1 7 . 6 1 9 . 1 1 3 . 6 1 2 . 7 4 . 6
I n t r a v e n o u s u s e r s 3 2 . 4 5 3 . 6 1 7 . 9 1 7 . 3 3 2 . 4 2 3 . 5 1 7 . 3 5 . 6
T o t a l 4 8 . 8 6 3 . 6 1 5 . 5 1 5 . 9 2 2 . 5 1 5 . 2 1 3 . 2 5 . 3
( S o u r c e : O p e n E x h i b i t 182, p a g e 67.)
A126
The survey report stated:
The average size of the family of our drug users did not differ
from that in the general population, but there was a marked
over-representation of oldest children and an underÂ
representation of middle-order children, whilst the observed number of youngest children equalled that expected from a
random distribution.
(Open Exhibit 182, page 66)
The survey also looked at the drug users' relationship with his or
her parents (see Table I I I . 18). The results here suggest that users
tend to have a better relationship with their m o t h e r s . Of course the
data does not show if this was the situation prior to the use of drugs
and hence it may only indicate an influence on the continued use of
d r u g s .
The survey results showed:
The relationship with both parents deteriorated with increasing intensity of drug u s e ... although over 40 per cent of parents
did not know that the subject was a drug user. This latter
proportion, however, decreased with the intensity of drug u s e ; and there was a converse increase in the percentage of parents
who were aware of the use of drugs by their son or daughter...
(Open Exhibit 182, page 67)
Some interesting data on drug overdose admissions were provided by
Dr B. G. Fotheringham, Medical Superintendent of Modbury Hospital in
South Australia. The data covers various unequal periods during the
years 1973 to 1976. These figures showed quite clearly that
approximately 40 per cent of the reasons given by patients for overdosing
related to marital problems(Open Exhibit 264).
Family influences were also strongly represented in the reasons for aboriginal children's involvement in petrol sniffing. A report entitled 'Petrol Inhalation at Maningrida 1978: Initial Findings' was presented in evidence by the author Dr H. D . Eastwell, Senior Lecturer in
Psychiatry at the University of Queensland. This report looked at the
problem of petrol sniffing by aboriginal children. One of the factors
seen by Dr Eastwell as being a characteristic of petrol sniffing
children from the Gunavidji and Nakara clans was the lack of parental
c o n t r o l :
...the problem of petrol sniffing behaviour, with its attendant delinquency is: why do not the Gunavidji and the Nakara control
their children? (Open Exhibit 461, page 11)
One of the other clans mentioned was the Galpu from Elcho Island.
Dr Eastwell claimed that the Galpu clan appear to foster agressiveness
in their children and that they actually condoned petrol sniffing by
A127
their y o u n g s t e r s . Dr Eastwell added that similar mechanisms seem at
work among the Gunavidji and Nakara clans (Open Exhibit 461, page 12).
Dr Eastwell felt that alternatively the low self-esteem of the
Gunavidji--Nakara clans together with the higher probability of parents from the clans being alcoholic and unemployed may have influenced the
children's d e cision to sniff petrol (Open Exhibit 461, page 12).
Maningrida community residents, both aboriginal and European, were reported by Dr Eastwell as being concerned with several aspects of
petrol sniffing by young aboriginal children. One of these was a
possible link between petrol sniffing and future use of alcohol with a
strong p o s s ibility of alcoholism. Sniffers compare their behaviour
with that of adult d r u n k s . Some stated that they are waiting until they
are old enough to drink. Others say they are imitating drunken parents.
Adult alcoholics are known to resort to petrol when alcohol is not
a v a i l a b l e .
CULTURAL INFLUENCE
There is a general tendency for most people to think of the problem
of drug abuse as a modern p h e n o m e n a . However it was also claimed that
the general use and abuse of drugs had changed little over the span of
t i m e .
In evidence also presented to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of D r u g s , Dr Î. B. K i l d e a , a general
practitioner said:
The reason for the current epidemic of drug addiction is often
presented as a consequence of modern l i f e ; the soul-destroying pace of the competitive world, the disruption of traditional
standards and the elevation of materialistic and hedonistic
drives. In fact, the use and abuse of drugs has altered little
in its general pattern over the span of recorded history.
(OT 7799--7800)
Dr K i l d e a 's paper entitled 'Doctors---Are they Drug Pushers, Drug
Users or A b u s e r s , or W h a t ? ' contains a section covering the historical
perspective of drug use and abuse and makes reference to the following:
'Of all remedies which it has pleased almighty God to give to
man to relieve his suffering none is so universal and so
efficacious as op i u m ' , wrote Sir Thomas Sydneham, a seventeenth century physician and the father of English medicine.
...In eighteenth century England, Dr George Young wrote that
'opium had got into the hands of every pretender of practice
and is prescribed every day, not only by many charitable and
well meaning ladies, but even by the too officious and ignorant
A128
n u r s e s .' He complained that 'great numbers are daily
destroyed, not indeed b y such doses as kill s u d d e n l y ...but it
is being given unreasonably in such diseases and to such
constitutions for which it is not proper.'
...In 1884 the superintendent of the Toronto asylum, in which
Dr George Yo u n g worked, complained in the 'Toronto Daily Globe' of the increasing number of opium addicts that were being
admitted to his hospital.
...In 1885 two doctors from the German Morphine Institute
confirmed the value of cocaine in the cure of the morphine
habit, and morphine was replaced by cocaine which was said to
be free of addictive properties...
...In 1 8 9 8 . . .Heroin was claimed to have all the therapeutic
advantages of opium, bu t to be free from all the addictive
properties, and it was especially recommended in the treatment of opium a d d i c t i o n . ..
...In 1964 the first treatment centre for the replacement of
heroin b y this drug (methadone) was established in New York.
Heroin addicts were weaned off their heroin and maintained on
regular doses of methadone.
(OT 77 9 8 â 99)
In an article by the Institute of Mental Health and Research Post
Graduate Training, 'Drug Use among the Young Population of the State of
Victoria, Australia: A Metropolitan and a Rural City Survey:' written
by J. Krupinski, A. Stoller and G. D. Graves and published in the
Journal of Drug Issues (Volume 7, No. 4, p p . 36S--376) the authors
q u o t e d :
However, as Kohn and Mercer stated: 'Hard evidence for a
relationship b etween socio-political ideology on the one hand, and drug use and drug use attitudes on the other, has been
sparse, diffuse and unsystematic.' (OT 3022)
In a letter to the Chairman of the South Australian Royal Commission
into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and incorporated into the evidence of
this Commission, Dr S. B. Furnass, the Director of the University Health Service at the Aus t r a l i a n National University, Canberra said that the
drug scene may be but a symptom of a malaise in western society:
.. .It is m y impression that the drug scene may be but a symptom
of a malaise in western society whose economic and political
activities are still largely dominated by the production-
consumption ethic, having yet found no alternative to warfare
in its attempts to solve the long term issues of unemployment
and increasing leisure.
(OT 10270)
A129
Despite this evidence a number of witnesses saw some cultural values as influencing the use of drugs,
Dr H S. Waddy, Deputy Director, Central Drug and Alcohol Advisory Service., Health Commission of Hew South Wales, during the presentation of a submission from the Australian Foundation for Alcohol and Drug Dependence Working Committee on Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training in Alcohol and Other Drugs, agreed with the proposition that the major factors influencing drug use are social and cultural and the context in which drug taking takes place was a major determinant of drug user patterns (OT 1449-4).
Hr h. huger, a U.S. citizen, who was in Australia assisting in the establishment of an Odyssey rehabilitation centre in Hew South Wales made several observations on why the Australian environment may lead young people to commence drug use:
...there is a danger that the beautiful sun and surf which
abound in Australia sometimes accentuate the hedonism, fun living qualities, and strong desire for a care free life on the part of youths. (OT 10254A)
Mr luger saw the Australian 'mateship' tradition as influencing the continued use of drugs (OT 10254â 4A).
Dr J. F. Rutter, a semi-retired medical practitioner from Melbourne, mentioned the growth of 'coleoptera' type of music with its emphasis on drugs in the music or the use of drugs by the musicians (Open Exhibit 365, page 365).
Reference to the influence of modern music was also made by Mr V.. :M. Hesbitt in a report to the Hew South Wales Catholic Social Welfare Commission entitled 'The Use of Drugs by Students in Catholic Schools':
The Beatles' Sergeant Pepper Album premotionally made no secret of its hallucinatory nature (now the record cover confirms it) and coincident with its release was 'leaked' some of the Beatles own use of LSD. There seems little doubt of the true intent of some of their lyricsâ double entendre, e.g. 'Mother Mary's-- Words of Comfort---let it be' seem to be only very
thinly veiled reference to the relief from anxiety promised by marihuana. (OT 14754)
Mr V H. Hesbitt also cited a survey, undertaken for the Hew South Wales Health Commission, into the relationship between contemporary music, drug attitudes and drug behaviour which concluded that pop musicians did not deliberately put pro-drug messages into their music.
A130
However the survey did find that 6 2 per cent of the musicians
interviewed did in fact use marihuana and concluded that there was a definite link between existing drug beliefs and practices and the type of music preferred by the listener (OT 14755).
This interest in m o d e m music was reflected in the results of the survey entitled 'Drug Use by the Young Population of Melbourneâ, mentioned previously in this Chapter.
Cultural influences also played an important part in the involvement of aboriginal children in petrol sniffing. According to the opinions of the Maningrida community residents summarised in a report entitled 'Petrol Inhalation at Maningrida 1978: Initial Findings' by Dr E. D. Eastwell, Senior Lecturer in Psychiatry, University of Queensland, the
hand of petrol inhalers at Maningrida displayed an apparent disregard for some aboriginal traditions. The sniffing of petrol enabled this hand of young children to overthrow certain avoidance rules of the aboriginal culture (Open Exhibit 461, page 4).
AVAILABILITY
Although it was not considered the most important factor influencing the use of drugs,, several witnesses claimed that the ready availability of drugs had a significant influence on the use of drugs.
In an exhibit, submitted by Lr D- de Souza, First Assistant
Director-General of Health, entitled 'Drugs Demystifiedâ the author, Ms H. Nowlis, claimed that availability was just one of the factors considered necessary for drug use:
So such factors have as yet been clearly identified as either necessary or sufficient to serve as a basis for reasonably accurate prediction. Availability of drugs, a situation in which drug use is perceived as safe and association with
friends who use drugs seem to be the only factors that can be identified as necessary for drug use. None is a sufficient factor. (Open Exhibit 32, page 33)
Evidence from a number of other witnesses including Dr J. Erupinska, Director of Research, Mental Health Research Institute of Victoria, Dr Clare Sprague from the Rehabilitation organisation GROW and Dr P. J. J. O'Neill, Co-ordinator of Addiction Services, Hunter Health Region, Sew
South Wales Health Commission, all included availability as one of the main causes of drug use (OT 3022, 11303, 11754)
During a confidential session of the Commission a medical
practitioner described a user under her care as having been ±n just the right circumstances to commence drug use. These included drug availability:
A131
The girl was disturbed with an identity c r i s i s , separation
anxiety and possibly unrealistic expectations of her a b i l i t i e s . The drug was available through friends. The circumstances for use were just ri g h t that is, disturbed g i r l , drug
a v a i l ability and peer pressure.
(CT)
The results of the 1973 survey of the Melbourne drug sub-culture
which were included in evidence given by Dr J. K r u p i n s k i , clearly reveal that availability was one of the more frequent reasons for trying
specific drugs (See Table I I I .19)â
ADVERTISING
A number of witnesses agreed that advertising of licit drugs
influenced persons to either commence drug use or to continue the use of
legally obtainable drugs. Some also suggested that the advertising of
licit drugs affected community attitudes to and consumption of both
illicit and licit d r u g s . However the Advertising Federation of
Australia claimed that advertising was not a reason for commencing drug u s e .
In evidence presented to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, and incorporated into the evidence of this Commission, Mr W. D. Crews, the Director of the Crisis Centre of the
Wayside Chapel, Kings Cross, speaking on why people use d r u g s , said:
One of the main reasons I can see can best be explained in two
stories that have stuck in m y m i n d . When my little boy was
(two and a half) years old we were walking down Williams Street
and there was a big sign for Vincents powders displayed there.
He looked at me and said, 'Vincents make you b e t t e r !' People in
the Education Department did a survey amongst eight-year olds in Sydney and found that the most popular song was, 'I feel
like a T o o h e y s '. It was not, 'Mary had a little lamb'. The
message I get is that we are taught from the earliest age that
if you feel bad you should take a d r u g . People are not being
told what feeling bad is. I believe it is psychological and
physical. If you feel really terrible inside and you find a
drug that makes you feel better it will not matter whether or
not that drug is legal or illegal. We are getting people using
drugs to make them feel better.
~ (OT 11780)
D r J. H. Stewart, appearing on behalf of the Analgesics SubÂ
committee of the Australasian Society of Nephrology and the Australian Kidney F o u n d a t i o n , pointed out that studies in New South Wales had shown that there was no evidence that women who used analgesics excessively
were maladjusted m entally or socially but indicated that they had merely been influenced by advertising and ready availability of analgesics (OT
10603).
He also stated:
Widespread advertising and ready availability appears to have created in many Australian circles a tradition of taking a
A132
Reasons for Trying Specific Drugs (in percentages of those who ever used them)
Marihuana % Hallucinogens %
Stimulants %
Curiosity 78.8 79.8 37.1
Conformity 27.0 21.3 17.4
Availability 19.0 15.0 15.1
Intrapersonal 2.1 12.9 8.7
Excitement 3.9 2.4 9.5
Mental Stimulation 2.5 6.7 24.3
Rebellion 1.5 1.1 0.3
Cocaine %
63.5
20.7
32.5
1.5
4.9
1.5
0.5
Narcotics %
62.1
18.5
22.9
11.9
3.5
3.1
1.8
B a r b i t u r a t e s
%
27.3
7.6
16.3
12.2
5.8
0.5
(Source: Open Exhibit 182, page 75.)
powder for any minor c o m p l a i n t , a tradition which is handed
down from mother to daughter, but which ma y n ot yet have become
established in New Australian families whose mother tongue is
not English.
(OT 10603)
The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's Report 1 Drug
Problems in A u s t r a l i a---an intoxicated s o c i e t y ? ' (The Baume Report)
identified 'the very professional and appealing tobacco advertisements' as having a direct bearing on children commencing smoking (Open Exhibit 379, page 85).
This conclusion was further supported in the book 'Drugs Society and Personal C h o i c e ' by H. and 0. J. Kalant which claimed that advertising
was used to reinforce the feeling among children that drinking and
smoking are adult practices:
Most children in our society grow up with the feeling that
drinking and smoking are adult practices and therefore that
they have pr o v e n their adulthood when they are able to drink
and smoke and carry it off. This impression is constantly
reinforced by advertising wh i c h implies that using a certain
beer or cigarette is either elegant, glamorous, or otherwise
desirable as a means of enhancing one's p r e s t i g e .
(Open Exhibit 601, page 44)
In a r e p o r t ,'The Use of Drugs by Students in Catholic Schools' to
the New South Wales Catholic Social Welfare Commission, Mr V. M. Nesbitt claimed that millions of dollars were spent each year on very
professional advertising which promoted the use of alcohol, tobacco and painkillers in either a setting of opulence, leisure and pleasure or as
acceptable and desirable behaviour:
Using every trick known to behavioural science, in what has
become known as 'supermarket psychology', a sustained effort expends millions in advertising to promote use of alcohol,
tobacco and painkillers as acceptable and desirable behaviour.
(OT 14746)
As a guide to the effects of advertising, Mr Nesbitt included the
tabulation reproduced here as Table III.2 0 . This table shows that most
people obtain information about drugs from magazines, n e w s p a p e r s ,
television and radio.
A134
Table III.20: Acquisition of Information about Drugs
Non-Users E x peri Users Total
mental Sample
% Users % % %
Magazines, Newspapers 67.7 62.1 53.2 65.6
TV, Radio 62.9 46.1 37.7 58.5
Books 25.1 34.1 36.5 27.2
Drug Users 20.0 64.0 78.8 30.7
Lectures 17.4 16.0 18.5 17.4
Medical literature 14.8 21.3 24.9 16.5
Peers 6.1 8.8 6.6 6.4
Parents 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.4
Personal Experience 1.1 3.2 17.4 3.1
(0T 14747)
In the Australian National University's Report entitled 'Drug
Education Programs and the Adolescent in the Drug Phenomena P r o b l e m ',
reference was made to a 1972 American Study which listed advertising as
one of the five main causes of drug abuse by school children.
However, evidence presented in a submission from the Advertising
Federation of Australia claims that a survey of over 250 articles and
studies on drug use from the United States of A m e r i c a , Canada and the
United Kingdom revealed that there was no factual evidence of a
correlation between advertising and trends in drug use. The submission s t a t e d :
Proprietary Drugs Advertising and its Effects
A number of U.S. Studies were u n c o vered, dealing with the
subject of proprietary drug advertising and its possible effect on young people's usage of illicit d r u g s . In all findings
examined, there appeared to be no correlation between this
cause-and-effect a r e a : *
* The National Broadcast Company conducted a study, over a
3-year field-work period, on the possible relationship
between exposure to television advertising of proprietary
A135
drugs and illicit drug u s e . The key findings in the study
showed that overall the exposure of TV drug advertising
n either directly nor indirectly leads young people to use
illicit drugs.
(OT 15930)
Alcohol Advertising and its Effects
There appears to be no factual evidence of a correlation
bet w e e n alcohol a d v e rtising and per capita consumption
i n c r e a s e s .
(OT 15933)
Tobacco Advertising and its Effects
The effect that advertising has or has not on overall cigarette
consumption is a complex, emotional and on-going controversy. For purposes of this paper, we will restrict and direct our
thoughts to the following mo s t relevant, rational and factual
points only:
* There is no statistical evidence that AFA members have
seen that proves there is any correlation between tobacco
advertising and overall tobacco consumption
increase/decrease trends. For example, in Italy,
cigarette advertising has been banned since 1963, yet per
capita consumption and increased per capita consumption
rates are amongst the highest in the world. In Norway and
Sweden all tobacco a d v e rtising was banned, yet cigarette
consumption continues to increase. In Russia, where no
tobacco advertising exists, tobacco usage is much higher
than it is in Australia. There are many other examples
thac show little or no consumption decreases occurring
when tobacco advertising bans or restrictions have been
i m p l e m e n t e d .
(OT 15935)
While the Advertising F e d e ration of Australia's submission quoted Norway as a country experiencing increased tobacco use despite the ban
on advertising, the 1977 report of the Senate Standing Committee on
Social Welfare, 'Drug Problems in A u s t r a l i a---an 'intoxicated society?', claimed that the ban was followed by a decline in the per capita
consumption of cigarettes and tobacco of 2.7 per cent. This would tend
to suggest that advertising does in fact have some impact on the use of
the advertised drug (Open Exhibit 379, page 9S--99).
Advertising of tobacco is further discussed in Part XII, Chapter 3.
RELIGION
In evidence also given to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the Di r e c t o r of the Crisis Centre at
Sydney's Wayside Chapel, Mr W. D. Crews, agreed that the apparent rise
in drug use had been associated with a decline in formal spiritual
values and the growth of new religious groups.
A136
While the results of the 1973 Melbourne drug sub-culture survey
suggest religion was not given as a specific reason for either being a
user or for trying specific d r u g s , they show that a significantly higher proportion of users had no religion or were agnostic and that eastern
religion and p h i losophy appeared to have some influence on drug users.
Influences of eastern philosophy and eastern religion were mentioned by 10 per cent and 16.8 per cent of the drug sub-culture sample
respectively. Furthermore the influence of eastern philosophy was
higher amongst the older users. The results are shown in Tables III 21
to III.23. ------------ â
In a report to the New South Wales Catholic Social Welfare
Commission, Mr V. M. Nesbitt pointed to a research paper by a Mr J .
Orford, 'Aspects of the relationship b etween alcohol and drug abuse',
which suggested that religious conversion may be an escape route from
dependence. Mr Nesbitt added that in the case of alcoholism dramatic
and unpredicted changes in behaviour occur quite frequently and that it was not uncommon for some of these behavioural changes to be associated
with changes in religious belief or observance (0T 14761).
Table III.21
Influence of Eastern Philosophy and Religion on the Drug Scene
Drug Use Group
Percentage
Eastern Philosophy %
influenced by Eastern Religion %
Marihuana users 4.6 5.7
Multi-oral users 9.0 20.1
Intravenous users 15.6 22.9
(Source: Open Exhibit 182, page 79.)
Table i n . 22
Influence of Eastern by Age of First Use Religion on Multi-oral and Intravenous Users
Age of First Use
Multi-oral users No. Influenced %
Intravenous users No. Influenced %
Under 18 82 12.2 88 13.6
18 and over 242 22.7 91 31.9
(Source: Open Exhibit 182, page 79.)
A137
Table III. 23
Influence of Philosophy on the Marihuana and Multi-oral Users by Length of Use
Marihuana Users Multi-oral Users
Length of Use No. Influenced
%
No. Influenced %
Under 2 years 100 34.0 65 35.4
2-3 years )
) 93 45.2
126 47.6
4 and more years ) 130 58.5
(Source: Open Exhibit 182, page 80.)
A138
Chapter 4 Profiles of Illegal Drug Users
The experiences of 139 illicit drug users were documented in evidence to the Commission through personal appearances of users before the
Commission, written submissions, and evidence by parents of users. This chapter offers a history of some people who have been involved in the
drug sub-culture in an attempt to identify general patterns of
behaviour. However it is extremely important that caution be exercised in interpreting these results. The analysis cannot be seen as
statistically valid in any meaningful sense. The evidence given in
written statements by these users was not always comprehensive enough to draw precise conclusions. Another problem is that only those people who were sufficiently motivated for a variety of reasons came forward to
give evidence. This creates a bias in the results with an overÂ
representation of users undergoing treatment and under-representation of active use r s . The summation of this evidence could not be described as
a random sample of the drug-using population. At best, the results can
be only interpreted as a general indicator of the characteristics of
those drug users who gave evidence.
Of the 138 users who stated their sex, 106 were male and 32 were
female. Although this appears to be an extraordinary bias towards
males, it should be pointed out that most surveys of drug users indicate
that a high proportion of users are male.
Of the 112 who gave their age, 54 were in the 20â 24 years age
bracket, 32 in the 2S--29 year group and 12 were between 15 and 19 years
o l d .
Looking at marital status, 59 per cent of those who volunteered
their status were single, while 24 per cent were married and a smaller
number (17 percent) were either divorced, separated, widowed or in a de
facto relationship.
CASE STUDY A
Age:
S e x :
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances U s e d :
Approximately 28
Male Unemployed Separated, one child Marihuana, heroin, amphetamines, LSD, methadone,
mescaline and mushrooms.
Patterns of Drug U s e : He first used alcohol at the age of 13 and at 14
years of a g e , began using marihuana during a trip to India. His use
continued through the rest of his school years and progressed onto
other drugs. By 1976 he had tried almost all illicit drugs and was
dealing extensively. He 'scored' and dealt in a string of hotels in
Sydney's eastern suburbs. He was able to obtain drugs legally from
doctors by feigning illness. He had also grown marihuana for his
own use in pot plants.
A139
Relationship wi t h Alcohol: He drank alcohol excessively in conjunction with other d r u g s .
Drugs and D r i v i n g : He stated that he would not want drug users to be in
control of any machinery.
Trafficking: He became involved in dealing as a means to obtain money
to support his habit. He pointed out that this was common among
heavy users. He had imported LSD and heroin on a small scale.
Drug-related Offences: He had a h istory of eight arrests, approximately four being drug related with another two, d r u g - i n d u c e d . Charges had included possession and supply of m a r i h u a n a , stealing and false
p r e t e n c e s .
Personal Attitudes: He was in favour of reform of the laws relating to
marihuana as this would lower the incidence of people coming into
contact wi t h harder d r u g s .
Treatment: He had undertaken several treatment programs including
electric shock therapy, medication and Narcotics Anonymous.
CASE STUDY B
Age:
S e x :
O c c u p a t i o n : Marital Status: Substances Used:
25 Female Unemployed (trained nurse) Single M a r i h u a n a , hash, hash oil, LSD, m o r p h i n e , heroin,
opium and M a n d r a x .
Patterns of Use: The witness commenced using cannabis when she was 18
years o l d , shortly after leaving High School. She was first
introduced to marihuana by her boyfriend. Her use of marihuana
continued for about nine months and she progressed to hash and hash
oil. She began to use LSD at age 20 and after her first 'trip'
indulged heavily, taking the drug approximately every 3 days for 3
months. Her first use of heroin occurred in 1973 when a friend gave
her an adulterated 'joint' without her k n o w l e d g e . On a short trip
to Indonesia in 1973, through her association with musicians, the
witness was introduced to morphine. On her return to Australia she
became sick for a week with a h a b i t . When she approached the end of
her nursing training she began to smoke heroin, progressing to a
cap of heroin a day. At the conclusion of her course, she ceased
using heroin for three months but continued smoking m a r i h u a n a . She
went through withdrawal aided by a doctor who gave her some M a n d r a x . On other o c c a s i o n s , she had obtained Mandrax legitimately by
'shopping a r o u n d ' with three or four other users to different
doctors. After her three month lay-off from using heroin, she
drifted back into using narcotics regularly.
Relationship with Alcohol: No evidence was received.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: She said that she had supported her heroin habit through
trafficking.
A140
Drug-related Offences: The witness had several arrests for drug-related offences including p o s session of c a n n a b i s , possession of opium and passing a forged prescription.
Personal Attitudes: She thought that the suppression of marihuana had led people directly onto taking heroin.
Treatment: She stated that she had tried every means possible to cease
using heroin. At the time of giving e v i d e n c e , she was undergoing a
methadone blockade treatment program. She stated that methadone
blockade had effectively halted her dependence on heroin. She
thought that it was pointless to waste mo n e y in obtaining heroin
when she did not achieve any satisfaction from using it. With the
dosage of methadone she was consuming, she felt able to carry out
normal everyday functions.
Marital Status: Single
Substances Used: C a n n a b i s , LSD, and psilocybin (mushrooms)
Patterns of Use: His first use of cannabis occurred at age 18 during
his first year at University. Towards the end of his first year he
commenced using marihuana semi-regularly. While at University he
tried LSD and on one or two occasions since. In his second year at
University his use of cannabis increased but was still intermittent. Once the witness left university and began working f u l l - t i m e , he
could afford to buy and use cannabis regularly. In more recent
times, the witness along with a friend has grown some cannabis
plants for their own use.
Relationship with Alcohol: He did not take much alcohol and made a
point of not mixing alcohol and cannabis.
Drugs and Driving: He regarded driving after using marihuana as a
'waste of being stoned' since driving required concentration and
thought wh i c h spoilt the effect of the drugs.
T r a f f i c k i n g : He trafficked in marihuana and hashish occasionally with some friends. He remarked that a fringe benefit from dealing was
that their supply of free high quality cannabis was ensured.
Drug-related O f f e n c e s : He had never been arrested by police for any
drug-related crime.
Personal Attitudes: The witness stressed that the people who used
cannabis could not be set apart from others in the community. He
added that the m a jority of users had only one area of maladjustment. This was an insecurity directly related to the laws on cannabis. He
was critical of the double standards represented by the 'a p p r o v e d , advertised, exhorted use of alcohol, cigarettes and pills' which
made the 'attitudes and values of our laws impossible to take
s e r i o u s l y '.
CASE STUDY C
A g e : S e x :
24 Male Scientist Occupation:
A141
Treatment: No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY D
Age:
S e x :
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
29 Male Lecturer Separated, one child
Cannabis, psilocybin (mushrooms), LSD, amphetamines, Ritalin and amyl nitrite.
Patterns of Use: The witness classified himself as an 'episodic heavy drinker' until early 1977. He did not drink regularly, but when he
did, he would consume an inordinate amount. His first use of
marihuana occurred at a student party in late 1967. He regarded it
then as being 'foul-tasting' and added that it did nothing for him.
During 1968, the witness started work and remarked that he 'drank
copiously, smoked as much dope as was obtainable, tried LSD and
indulged in taking some deviously 'scored' licit drugs. From 1969
to mid 1972, he regularly drank alcohol and smoked cannabis, often
excessively, but without reaching a point where he felt that his
actions could be described as irresponsible. He moved to another
city in an attempt to alter his alcohol dependency in a new
environment. However as he became familiar with his new
surroundings, he again began to indulge in drinking heavily and
smoking marihuana. In early 1974, his wife-to-be gave him an
ultimatum to cease drinking which he did for eight months. During
this period he continued to use cannabis because, 'it was not a
negative influence upon our relationship'. Again, however, he
lapsed into his former behaviour patterns. He has since separated
from his wife due to the combined pressures of his excessive
drinking habits and their workload. After his separation, he drank heavily and described his consumption as 'enormous' by previous
comparison. Early in 1978, he contacted Lifeline and through
counselling and his own desire, he stopped drinking.
Relationship with Alcohol: The witness argued that the legal drug
alcohol had a more deleterious effect on his life than the illicit
drug marihuana.
Drugs and Driving: He did drive while he was 'stoned' but his
perception was not good and he did experience some distortion.
Drug-related Offences: The witness, at the time of giving evidence, had been charged with a number of offences including possession and
smoking of Indian Hemp, trafficking in Indian Hemp and unlawful
possession of money obtained from selling drugs.
Personal Attitudes: He suggested that the scientific evidence for and against the use of cannabis was inconclusive. He argued that the
concept that the use of marihuana leads to a progression to harder
drugs was a myth. He also disagreed with the viewpoint that
marihuana smoking led to a lack of motivation. He thought that the
image of a marihuana user being an undesirable member of the
community was unwarranted as he had known many users who were
actively involved in their community.
A142
Treatment: The witness had u n d ertaken several different treatment
programs over a period including electro-convulsive therapy,
medication, group therapy and analysis.
CASE STUDY E
Age:
Sex:
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
26 Male Unemployed
Single Methedrine, LSD, heroin, cannabis, barbiturates,
Ri t a l i n and Dilaudid.
Patterns of Use: His first involvement with drugs occurred at age 13,
with his use of methedrine while at school. To obtain 'speed'
tablets, the witness, along with some companions, would break and
enter pharmacies. When he was 17, he extended his use to other
drugs such as LSD, heroin and cannabis. His use of heroin ceased
when he was 23. He used barbiturates for some time after he came
off heroin to suppress the withdrawal symptoms. He told the
Commission that his most recent use of drugs occurred in the last 12
months when he had obtained some 'speed'. In 1977 he had obtained
some R i t a l i n through legal prescriptions from doctors whom he
described as 'bent'.
Relationship wi t h Alcohol: Only since he had ceased taking illicit
drugs had the witness begun drinking alcohol.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: During the period 1973â 74 he became heavily involved in
trafficking in methedrine, LSD, heroin and marihuana.
Drug-related Offences: He had several convictions for drug-related
offences including self-administration of heroin, p o s session and trafficking in heroin.
Personal Attitudes: He stated that he left the drug sub-culture because of his age. He began to find it difficult to relate to the young
people who were now making up the m ajority of drug users. The
witness stated that some users of cannabis had turned to heroin and
cocaine when their usual supply of cannabis was difficult to obtain.
He wanted the authorities to turn a blind eye to marihuana and
adopt stringent measures against hard drugs.
Treatment: No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY F
Age
S e x :
Occupation Marital Status: Substances Used:
25 Male Unemployed Not stated
Tranquillisers, amphetamines, barbiturates, morphine, LSD, purple hearts, marihuana, opium, pethidine,
Valium, heroin, cocaine and Mandrax.
A143
Patterns of U s e : Being an asthmatic and regularly hospitalised when he was young, the witness stated that he had been introduced to
numerous drugs including t r a n q u i l l i s e r s , a m p h e t a m i n e s , b a r b i t u r a t e s , morphine and other opiates, from the age of five. By the time he
was 11, he had overcome his asthma but still used amphetamines and
barbiturates when he had an occasional attack. He commenced use of
alcohol at the age of 14 and remarked that his consumption averaged
between 2 and 3 large bottles of spirits a week. He started using
LSD at the age of 15 and while at s c h o o l , he was introduced to
'purple hearts' and 'pep' pills. When he was 16, he began using
opium derivatives from cough mixtures and any opiates obtained over- the-counter from chemist shops. He added that he also smoked 'opium
tar'. A f t e r obtaining his first j o b , he mainly used alcohol for
about six months, averaging a bottle of spirits a day. He also
indulged in opium smoking and tried cannabis for the first time. At
one stage a workmate gave him large quantities of pethidine and
morphine with an approximate street value of $ 6 0 0 0 - - $ 7 0 0 0 . The
drugs were the balance of items stolen from hospitals. His use of
drugs progressed to a stage where he was maintaining a $500--1000 a
week narcotic habit through selling heroin and cocaine. He
undertook a methadone program for three months but ceased when he
began to obtain narcotics from doctors through assuming various
names by forging p r e s c r i p t i o n s . At the time of giving evidence the
witness had registered for a treatment program and was receiving
pethidine and pentabarb daily and methadone on weekends. During
sittings the witness told the Commission that his last use of heroin
and marihuana was two days ago and his last use of M a n d r a x was about
a month before giving evidence. He had taken cocaine intravenously
approximately four months before his appearance at the Commission. On the day that he gave evidence he had taken pethidine together
with 4 Va l i u m tablets (size 5 mg each) at 8.30 am and consumed 3
ten-ounce glasses of beer at l u n c h t i m e .
Relationship wi t h A l c o h o l : He regularly drank alcohol.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: He sold c a n n a b i s , heroin and cocaine for profit to support his habit. He had obtained heroin from Thailand which had a street
value of between $50 000--60 000.
Drug-related Offences: He had received several charges including
breaking and e n t e r i n g , possession of instruments used for
administering narcotics and possession of marihuana.
Personal Attitudes: No evidence was received.
Treatment: At one stage he had undergone a methadone p rogram for three
months. He entered a psychiatric hospital for treatment during 1974 and was discharged after three weeks. At the time of giving
evidence he had registered for a treatment program w i t h a State
Health authority. He had applied for registration on a methadone
program but was refused at least six t i m e s .
CASE STUDY G
Age: Not stated
A144
Sex:
Occupation:
Male Consultant
Marital Status: N o t Stated
Substances U s e d : C a n n a b i s , heroin, LSD.
Patterns of U s e : The witness had smoked cannabis 'on and o f f for six
years. At one stage on an overseas t r i p , in a nine-month period, he
was smoking cannabis daily. He said that he used marihuana for
relaxation. In more recent times he had smoked it every day when it
was available, although there had been an occasion when he went
without the drug for three to four months because of a supply
problem. The witness had used LSD approximately a dozen times, four
or five years before the time of giving evidence. He had
experimented w i t h heroin out of curiosity while on an overseas trip
to Asia.
Relationship with Alcohol: He consumed alcohol regularly.
Drugs and Driving: He stated that he was capable of driving after
smoking cannabis although there was a tendency for him to go more
slowly than usual.
Trafficking: No evidence was received.
Drug-related Offences: The witness had one conviction for the
possession of a small amount of marihuana for which he received a
small fine.
Personal Attitudes: The witness had never seen anyone violent while
smoking marihuana whereas he believed that alcohol and violence were closely associated. He suggested that marihuana was one of the only
drugs that did not cause death through overdosing. He did not
believe that there was a link b etween marihuana and hard d r u g s . In
his opinion most people who had used marihuana did not have any
involvement wi t h heroin. However, he also argued that restriction
of marihuana could cause a greater likelihood of users progressing
to other drugs if marihuana could not be o b t a i n e d . He strongly
advocated that the use of marihuana should be decriminalised.
Treatment: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Marital Status: Single
Substances U s e d : Cannabis and heroin
Patterns of Use: The witness began smoking marihuana at university at
the age df 18. He smoked it occasionally at parties and with
friends but never became a regular user. At 22, he was offered
heroin and tried it to make him 'feel better'. His use of heroin
progressed until after about a year he had to keep up its use to
allay the symptoms of withdrawal. After spending seven months at a
methadone clinic in an earnest attempt to cease his use of h e r o i n ,
he drifted ba c k into using heroin after realising that 'methadone
CASE STUDY H:
Age:
Sex:
Occupation:
26 Male Pest Exterminator
A145
was no better than h e r o i n ' . He ceased using drugs after he was
arrested by customs a g e n t s .
Relationship with A l c o h o l : No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Trafficking: The witness supported his own habit through dealing in
heroin. When he was younger he had broken into chemist shops to
steal d r u g s .
Drug-related O f f e n c e s : The witness had one conviction for possession of a p r o h ibited import. He was fined $400 and received a three year
b o n d .
Personal Attitudes: He thought that it was a misconception that drug
traffickers had to lure people to take d r u g s . He remarked that the
demand was so high that this was not necessary. He said that the
drugs were expensive but the people who wanted it were prepared to
pay. He did not believe that there was anything wrong,
psychologically or medically, in using heroin. On the subject of
treatment p r o g r a m s , he thought that the system of registration of
heroin addicts which applied in England was a more useful and
sensible method of therapy than methadone treatment p r o g r a m s . He
believed that people who were on a methadone program, to a large
extent, continued to use heroin as well. If heroin users could,
under medical supervision, legally obtain heroin, then there would cease to be a black market thus curbing the criminal involvement
with d r u g s .
Treatment: As noted a b o v e , he received treatment at a methadone clinic for seven m o n t h s---however he drifted back into heroin usage.
CASE STUDY I
Age:
Sex:
Ocupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
Not stated Male Sales Manager Not Stated Cannabis
Patterns of U s e : He first came into contact with cannabis through a
senior employee at a firm with which he had dealings. To satisfy
his curiosity he purchased from this acquaintance 4 ounces of
m a r i h u a n a . At that stage this purchase lasted a considerable time
since he still indulged in drinking alcohol regularly. He said that in more recent times he had an occasional drink of alcohol but
considered marihuana as his social mixer in preference to alcohol. He added that he had not been intoxicated during the last 2 and a
half y e a r s .
Relationship with Alcohol: He drank alcohol occasionally.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Trafficking: No evidence received.
Personal Attitudes: He stated that he had met many people who smoked
cannabis instead of drinking alcohol and they were perfectly normal people except in the eyes of the law. He constantly came into
contact wi t h senior company representatives who preferred to smoke c a n n a b i s . He saw no evidence in his experience that smoking
cannabis would lead to the use of other hard d r u g s . Over the period
that he had b e e n using m a r i h u a n a , the witness believed that there
had been no apparent change in his lifestyle, his ability to carry
out his work or perform any other duty. He suggested that alcohol
was responsible for a large proportion of crimes of violence, motor
accidents and robberies whereas cannabis smokers did not show
similar behavioural patterns to heavy d r i n k e r s . He believed there
was a high p r o b ability that young people would come into contact
with supplies of hard drugs. This occurred when marihuana users, in
their efforts to procure c a n n a b i s , would be enticed to try various
forms of hard d r u g s .
T r e a t m e n t : No evidence was received.
Drug-related offences: No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY J
Age:
S e x :
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
26 Female Skilled white collar Single
Cannabis, Mandrax, LSD,
m e t h a d o n e .
c ocaine, heroin and
Patterns of U s e : Her first experience with drugs occurred during her
last year at high school when she shared a 'joint' of hashish with a
group of friends. She said that she had been drinking up to 10
mixed drinks at a time on occasions during the previous 18 months
but she found the sensation with marihuana to be infinitely
pref e r a b l e . After this first experience with cannabis, for the next 12 months she used the drug whenever it was available, such as at
parties and gatherings. After that period, her use of cannabis
became more regular and she began smoking daily. She had her first
'tripâ on LSD at age 20, and over the following two years used this
drug approximately ten times. She said that she was always in
control of her faculties but LSD 'did not do anything' for h e r .
After a while she simply did not want to take any m o r e . She had
tried cocaine about half a dozen times, by sniffing it, but had not
indulged in its use for the past two years. The witness had smoked
heroin once and had 'snorted' it on a couple of occasions. She said
that she did not like the effect because it distorted reality too
much for her liking. Her first use of Mandrax occurred about seven
years ago but she had ceased using this drug because more stringent
administration by the authorities had made it more difficult to
obtain. At the time of giving evidence, she said that she smoked an
average of five or six 'joints' of cannabis per day, mainly using
buddha sticks but also marihuana or hashish.
Relationship with Alcohol: She drank alcohol socially but never to
e x c e s s .
A147
Drugs and Driving: She believed that she could still work and drive
while she was stoned on marihuana and her judgment was not impaired
to any mar k e d degree.
Trafficking: About four years ago, the witness and her boyfriend had
imported some hashish from a Eu r o p e a n city. It was sent by mail
from a friend, hidden in the middle of tea bags and cheeses. She
added that the purpose of the importation was not as a profit making
venture but only for their own u s e .
Drug-related O f f e n c e s : No evidence was received.
Personal A t t i t u d e s : She thought that people's personalities changed for the worse when they drank excessively and most became rude and
a g g r e s s i v e . On the other h a n d , marihuana smokers had no tendencies
towards violence. She said that in her e x p e r i e n c e , people who used
marihuana and heroin were in 'completely different scenes'. The
supply of marihuana usually came from a different source than the
supply of heroin.
Treatment: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
CASE STUDY K
Age:
Sex :
O c c u p a t i o n : Marital Status: Substances Used:
21 Male Unskilled labourer Not stated Cannabis, M a n d r a x , LSD, mushrooms and heroin.
Patterns of Use: He commenced smoking marihuana at 17 years of age
while at high school. He obtained his marihuana from a friend who
was a regular smoker and who mixed within his circle of friends at
high school. Af t e r leaving high school and obtaining employment, he started to experiment with hallucinogens such as LSD and m u s h r o o m s . He said that he used them 'for a month or so' but after t h a t , lost
interest. He stated that most people he knew did not take
hallucinogens regularly. On a few occasions he had used Mandrax,
mainly at parties. Up until the time he was 19 he was using
cannabis r e g u l a r l y . Towards the end of 1976 he said that marihuana
became difficult to obtain but heroin was plentiful, cheap and of
high quality. He discovered that his usual marihuana suppliers were now dealing in heroin. He said that he, along with others in his
circle, turned to heroin because of this shortage in m a r i h u a n a . By
early 1977 he had acquired a habit that consumed up to four capsules
per day. The major influence on his cessation of heroin use was
that he could see his friends go downhill after using heroin for
some time. He said that he could see what was happening to them but
did not realise the deterioration that he was u n d e r g o i n g .
Relationship with Alcohol: He seldom drank alcohol. He regards himself as a social drinker.
Drugs and Driving: The witness stated that he would drive his motor
bike if he was 's t o n e d ' on m a r i h u a n a . With the exception of two
girls who had only experimented with cannabis, he knew of no one who
experienced any difficulty in riding a bike or driving a car after
A148
using m a r i h u a n a . He said that some people he knew thought that they
could drive better after smoking cannabis because they 'tend to get
right into driving or whatever they are d o i n g ' .
Trafficking: After leaving high school, he commenced buying marihuana in pound (454 grams) lots and distributing the product in ounce (28
grams) lots. This allowed him to m aintain smoking marihuana without cost to himself. After some time he had reached the stage where he
fully supported himself along with some friends. After his
addiction to heroin set in, he supported his habit financially by
dealing in all types of d r u g s .
Drug-related Offences: He had been charged wi t h possession, use and
sale of heroin and possession of m a r i h u a n a .
Personal Attitudes: He did not attribute his use of marihuana to his
subsequent use of heroin. He stated that he was in favour of
legalisation of cannabis because he was worried about the presence
of a criminal element in the marihuana scene. He thought that
smoking marihuana appeared to have no obvious effects on people
physically or on their aims and goals in life.
Treatment: No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY L
Age:
S e x :
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
24 Male Bricklayer's labourer Single Mushrooms, LSD, cannabis, heroin and morphine.
Patterns of Use: While living with his parents, at 17 years of age, the
witness was offered some 'magic' mushrooms from a friend. He has
continued to use mushrooms since that first occasion, approximately cnce every year. After he had turned 18, he purchased several
tablets of LSD. Up until the time of giving evidence he had
continued his use of LSD. He carefully selected his atmosphere
before taking it to avoid any unpleasant effects. Travelling in the
north of Australia, towards the end of 1972, the witness bought an
ounce of marihuana and 3 'trips' of LSD. Since that time he has
continued to smoke marihuana and hashish. The witness first used
heroin injected intravenously in 1973. In the b e g i n n i n g , he started using three injections per week and four months later he had
progressed to one a day. On an overseas trip in mid-1973, he began
to indulge h eavily in drug taking. His drug habits on this trip
included sniffing heroin, using opium and marihuana, injecting
m o r p h i n e , smoking hashish and using buddha sticks.
Relationship wi t h Alcohol: He drank alcohol and usually consumed a
glass of wine while smoking marihuana.
Drugs and Driving: He would drive a motor vehicle after using
m a r i h u a n a , but drove more slowly than usual because his reactions
were slower.
A149
Trafficking: The witness detailed his experiences in South-East Asia where he was manufacturing and dealing in hashish for some m o n t h s .
While o v e r s e a s , he had sent some hashish to Australia.
Drug-related O f f e n c e s : He had been arrested twice for possession of
drugs while in South-East Asia. On the first occasion, he had 85
doses of LSD and on the second, he was carrying over 300 grams of
hashish. On both occasions he successfully bribed officials to
escape being c h a r g e d .
Personal Attitudes: He argued that marihuana should be legalised since a scarcity of marihuana often led people to use heroin. He said
that when purchasing marihuana, the buyer sometimes discovered that the dealer not only supplied marihuana but also heroin. He said
that this was why he was led to abuse narcotics. He thought that
the p r olonged abuse of any drug wi t h the exception of marihuana
caused physical deterioration. In the main, he had not indulged in
using heroin to any great extent. His attitude to heroin was shaped
by the experiences of some acquaintances who had declined physically after using heroin for some time. He added that he continued to
smoke cannabis but did not touch any other d r u g s .
T r e a t m e n t : No evidence was received.
Marital Status: Married
Substances U s e d : Cannabis
Patterns of Use: He usually smoked marihuana once every two months
socially wi t h friends who were mainly professional people also.
They n o rmally smoked marihuana in conjunction with light to medium
amounts of alcohol. He obtained his 'deals' from f r i e n d s .
Relationship with Alcohol: He enjoyed the loss of inhibition when he
used alcohol socially b u t , being a dedicated fitness fanatic, he
disliked having a hangover and the harmful effects that alcohol had
on the body.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: No evidence was received.
Drug-related Offences: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Personal Attitudes: He remarked that he knew nobody who had suffered
any harmful effects through using marihuana, either psychologically or any other way. He thought that the laws relating to the use of
marihuana should be altered so that it would be legal to be able to
grow your own at home. He suggested that it should be legal for
some official agency to be able to dispense it so that a type of
quality control would be introduced. This, he agreed, would stop
the practice of 's p i k i n g ' marihuana with some other substance and
would also do away with criminal inf l u e n c e s . He thought that the
CASE STUDY M
Age:
Sex:
Occupation:
Not stated Male Professional
A150
fact that pos s e s s i o n of marihuana was a criminal offence caused more problems in the community than it s o l v e d . He argued that the
consumption of alcohol was a much larger cause of social problems
than m a r i h u a n a . He wanted the legal right to be able to introduce
his own children to m a r i h u a n a , to discuss the ma t t e r with them, to
show them what it was like and to let them smoke it in their house
first, 'rather than going behind the local toilet to smoke it'. He
thought that there should be a broad minded approach to heroin users
such that supplies of heroin could be provided by the appropriate
authorities. He argued that this measure would eliminate the
necessity for pushers to operate in this illegal market. He
suggested that increasing penalties would have no effect on criminal involvement in the heroin trade.
Treatment: No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY N
Age:
Sex:
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
Not stated
Female Medical student Single Cannabis, LSD, heroin and opium.
Patterns of U s e : Her first use of marihuana commenced in 1973. At this
stage she was only experimenting with the drug but after a couple of
years began to use it more regularly. She used it 'on and off' in
more recent times but did not like to smoke m a rihuana while she was
studying. She enjoyed it more at social gatherings or listening to
music. She had taken LSD several times. She had used heroin
intravenously over a year about eight times. She commenced using it
with some friends because of curiousity. She had access to
disposable syringes and was extremely aware of the dangers of
injections. While on an overseas trip in Asia, the witness had
tried some opium.
Relationship with Alcohol: She rarely drank alcohol.
Drugs and Driving: She thought that driving while 'stoned' on marihuana was far different to driving while under the influence of alcohol.
She sometimes drove a motor vehicle when she was 'stoned' on
marihuana, although she noted that she would not attempt to drive if
heavily stoned.
Trafficking: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
Drug-related Offences: No evidence was received.
Personal Attitudes: She did not support the opinion that smoking
marihuana would make people apathetic. She thought that if a person
had goals in life then smoking marihuana could not induce apathy.
She supported the legalisation of m a r i h u a n a . She argued that there
were ma n y misconceptions about drugs and that people should be
educated so that they knew about and understood drugs. She thought
that the propaganda in the past about marihuana had be e n deleterious to proper drug education and led people to disrespect information- on other d r u g s . She believed that there was a significant amount of
A151
hepatitis contacted through drug taking and argued that users should be made aware of the problems associated wi t h hygiene and drug
taking. L ooking at the question of whether people progressed from
soft to hard d r u g s , she believed that there was a definite
association, since where drugs of one type were f o u n d , others were
also likely to be present.
T r e a t m e n t : No evidence was received.
CASE STUDY 0
Age:
Sex:
O c c u p a t i o n : Marital Status: Substances Used:
23 Male Unemployed Married C a n n a b i s , LSD, Mandrax, Avil, Valium, 1 s p e e d 1 and
'magic' m u s h r o o m s .
Patterns of Use: The witness attended high school until 1970 and the
following year became employed f u l l - t i m e . During that year he began to associate with people who were drug u s e r s . In the latter half of
the year he began smoking cannabis at weekends. He returned to high
school the following year (1972) to complete his leaving
certificate. He began to use marihuana regularly and LSD
occasionally. He was expelled from the school at the end of the
year for bad attendance. After leaving school he found employment
for the first six months of 1973 but did not work for two years
after that period. During this t i m e , he used m a r i h u a n a , hashish,
LSD, M a n d r a x , Avil, Valium, 'speed' and any other similar tablets. In late 1973 he became heavily dependent on LSD, consuming a dose
every two days. He was living with friends who had similar dr u g Â
using habits. His use of LSD became so heavy that no one would
supply him with the drug. With his LSD supply cut off he began to
recuperate. In 1974 he began playing a musical instrument with
various bands however his drug usage hindered the development of his musical career. Up until 1975 his pattern of drug use changed from
heavy LSD use to 'speed', d e p r e s s a n t s , antidepressants and alcohol. He also progressed to using 'magic mushrooms' and other
hallucinogenic plants. In 1975, he tapered his drug use to light
use of marihuana and alcohol since he had begun to realise the
effect of drugs on himself. Towards the end of 1975, due to his
desire to detach himself from criminal influences and for other
personal r e a s o n s , he broke away from his drug taking associates. In
early 1976 he married and ceased his use of illicit d r u g s .
Relationship with Alcohol: In recent times he only drank alcohol
occasionally.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: He agreed with the suggestion that it was common for a
user to be a trafficker in order to fund his own habit.
Drug-related Offences: He said that he had been arrested by police for
possession of illicit drugs but had never recorded a conviction.
A152
Personal A t t i t u d e s : The witness advocated stiffen penalties for
trafficking in drugs. He thought that there should be stiffer
penalties for the growing of any marihuana. He said that this
measure would discourage people growing marihuana in backyards which ultimately ended up in the schools.
Treatment: No evidence was received.
28 Female Drug counsellor
Not stated.
Pethidine, morphine, barbiturates, Palfium, heroin and LSD.
Her first experience with narcotics was the result of a motor cycle accident in early 1968 when she sustained multiple
injuries. As a result of this accident she remained an in-patient
in a hospital for four months. She became a resident of a
rehabilitation centre for 12 â 14 months and at the same time
remained an outpatient at the hospital she had previously attended. She suffered severe pain from the spinal injuries so she was given
injections of pethidine and morphine every three or four hours.
When she was discharged from the hospital she believed that she had
become addicted. At the rehabilitation centre she continued to
receive medication such as barbiturates and was prescribed large
amounts of narcotic pain-killing preparations by outside
specialists. She stated that there were others at the
rehabilitation centre who were in similar circumstances and they
would supply each other with drugs if one of them ever had a
shortage in supply.
She found that because of her injuries, her need for these
preparations was never questioned and she could obtain virtually as much as she needed. This situation continued until 1973 when she
had a further motor cycle accident while she was under the influence
of Palfium. Again, she suffered severe injuries and was admitted to
hospital. After four weeks, she stated that she signed herself out
because she felt that she was receiving insufficient medication.
She later realised that she was obtaining sufficient medication for her injuries but not for her addiction. At the time of this
accident she was residing in a communal house with several other
people who were using heroin and who supplied her with some.
After graduating from University, she found employment with several firms in her chosen field. Towards the end of 1975, she found that
drugs were starting to affect her work. About that time, she began
to mix with a new group of people who were using drugs such as LSD
and barbiturates. Her abuse of drugs led her to behave
irrationally. After contacting Lifeline, she was referred to
another charitable organisation which managed rehabilitation
programs. Since attending this centre she had ceased all use of
illicit drugs.
CASE STUDY P
Age:
Sex: Occupation:
Marital Status:
Substances Used:
Patfprns nf IIr p *
A153
Relationship with Alcohol: No evidence was received.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
T r a f f i c k i n g : No evidence was received.
Drug-related Offences: No evidence was received.
Personal Attitudes: The witness said that she thought that the
methadone program was sheer hypocrisy. She said that every addict
she met who had been on the program had never used methadone as it
should have been issued. She also believed that withdrawal from
methadone was more severe than heroin.
Treatment: She said that for years she had sought help in relation to
her addiction from many organisations. She ceased abusing drugs
after being referred by Lifeline to a charitable organisation
running a treatment c e n t r e . She stated that withdrawal was not the
intolerable experience that most addicts believed and said that much of the problem was psychological. Since breaking her addiction she
found that she could cope without narcotic pain killers.
CASE STUDY Q
Age:
S e x :
Occupation: Marital Status: Substances Used:
28 Male Advertising Single LSD, cannabis and mescaline.
Patterns of Use: His first involvement with drugs occurred at age 16
while he was a pupil at high school. He had read an article about
' p o t ' in a newspaper and was curious to try s o m e . He was introduced
to LSD by a person who was selling the drug at a c l u b . At this
point of time, his parents separated, and after a disagreement with
his m o t h e r , he left home and took up residence in a succession of
different places, almost all associated with a drug scene. He came
in contact with several older New Australians such as L e b a n e s e ,
Greeks and Egyptians who introduced him to hashish. At this stage,
he was taking LSD twice a week and did so for a long time. He found
it quite easy to obtain m a r i h u a n a . When he was 20--21 years of age,
he began to have some unpleasant experiences with LSD. Consequently he ceased his use of LSD but continued to smoke marijuana regularly.
Upon his conversion to Christianity he stopped using illicit drugs altogether.
Relationship with Alcohol: No evidence was received.
Drugs and Driving: No evidence was received.
Trafficking: About 1971 he began buying and selling m a r i h u a n a . He
would usually buy half a pound and sell it in ounce lots. (He noted
however, that he would never actually give the purchaser a full
o u n c e ) . He said that he only bought drugs from people whom he knew
but he would rarely know their source of the drug.
A154
Drug-related Offences: He never received any convictions for possession or trafficking in drugs.
Personal Attitudes: He did not believe that legalisation would stop or inhibit people from using d r u g s . He suggested that only through
religion could a former addict mai n t a i n a drug-free e x i s t e n c e .
Treatment: No evidence was r e c e i v e d .
A155
amounts and without the extra criminal charges attaching to
b reaking and entering, armed hold-ups of pharmacies, hospitals and, doctors' rooms.
(CT)
Ma n y drug users confirmed that the method of obtaining drugs from
doctors by m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was very successful. Users would visit up
to 15 surgeries daily to obtain supplies. One drug dependent person was
able to obtain about 100 Palfium (dextromoramide) tablets each day by
this method (OT 22471).
Forged P rescriptions
The C o m m i s s i o n received a large bo d y of evidence indicating that
obtaining drugs by means of forged scripts was a common practice among
drug users. The usual routine is to steal prescription forms from
doctors' surgeries, and or purchase forms stolen by someone else, and to forge a p r e s c r i p t i o n for the drug desired. Users generally present
forged pre s c r i p t i o n s at a pharmacy remote from the surgery of the
medical prac t i t i o n e r whose forms are being used. False names and
addresses of patients are entered in the forms.
The C o m mission was told that drug users become familiar with
pharmacies where scripts are dispensed with a minimum of questioning; in some cases a p h a rmacist will dispense a prescription knowing it to be a
f o r g e r y .
E vidence from an officer of the New' South Wales Health Commission
indicated that it was not possible to q uantify the amount of narcotic
drugs o b tained in this manner as the standard of forgeries had improved
greatly over the past few years; many were never detected.
A drug user told the Commission in confidential evidence that he
obtained Pa l f i u m (dextromoramide) tablets by forging prescriptions in his mother's name, as she was receiving this substance for a cancer
c o n d i t i o n .
Stealing Drugs
Pharmacies; doctors' surgeries, cars and bags; hospitals; drug
factories and warehouses are all targets for drug users seeking to
obtain supplies of narcotic drugs. M a n y drug users admitted to the
Commission that they had been involved in burglaries of such premises.
One witness stated in confidential session that he broke into between 50 and 60 doctors' surgeries before he was finally arrested:
We used to steal anything with s8 or DD on it, and there was
always pl e n t y of needles and syringes and tourniquets. It was
like a supermarket, but we did not touch anything except dope.
(CT)
A158
Increased security at pharmacies and other establishments in recent years is believed to have been responsible for an increase in the number
of armed hold-ups on chemist shops. Detective Inspector Baker, Officer- in-Charge of the Victoria Police GIB Drug B u r e a u , stated that armed
hold-ups on pharmacies were invariably committed by drug offenders (OT 22208). This was confirmed by other senior law enforcement officers.
Senior Sergeant K. S. Astill of the Ne w South Wales Police Drug
Squad in evidence given in August 1979 told the Commission that there
was at that time a heroin drought and as a result the number of
robberies of pharmacies and armed holdups had increased (OT 23468).
Many drug users also admitted to stealing drugs from other u s e r s---
commonly referred to as a 1 rip o f f 1. One witness said in confidential
evi d e n c e :
My associates were regularly engaged in busting chemist shops and into drug company stores. I also conspired with friends to
relieve other drug addicts of their supplies.
(CT)
Trafficking
There is no doubt that most drug users traffic in drugs. Persons
dependent on heroin and other narcotics are especially likely to deal in drugs owing to the high cost of supporting the h a b i t .
Officers from all police forces and the Narcotics Bureau confirmed that the user/dealer was an integral part of the drug scene. For
e x a m p l e , Chief Inspector W. L. Goedegebuure of the Northern Territory
Police Force explained:
It has come to the knowledge of investigators of the Northern
Territory Police that a person who is addicted to heroin may
need as much as one hundred dollars per day to maintain such
addiction. There is no lawful way in which a heroin addict can
earn such sum of money and one of the most prevalent ways of
doing so is to sell drugs of most types.
(OT 5669)
A Queensland Police constable told the Commission in confidential session:
I do not think in my experience here or in Sydney that I have
ever effected an arrest of a person in possession of heroin for
sale or supply that was not either on it at the time of his
arrest or had immediately withdrawn from it. The bulk of
persons that I have personally charged with possession for sale or supply are addicts and they appear to p u s h , to sell, to
maintain their own habit...
(CT)
A159
Mr M. J. R o g e r s , the then Commander of the Nor t h e r n Reg i o n of the
Narcotics Bureau said:
It is true to say that efforts are being concentrated on
persons involved in alleged trafficking and it is equally true
to indicate that in many instances so-called 'traffickers' are 'users' as well. Through nec e s s i t y to support their own needs
of drugs and money to purchase drugs, users engage in
t r a f f i c k i n g .
(OT 4489)
A high p r o p ortion of drug users who appeared before the Commission
admitted to trafficking in drugs. In confidential evidence, one heroin and cannabis user stated, concerning his selling cannabis:
As far as selling, I was only selling for the purpose of
providing my own sm o k i n g---that was al l---because $30 every two
or three days is a lot of money.
(CT)
At a time when the same witness became addicted to heroin he
commenced to sell heroin as well:
The principle I worked on was that if I could get it and turn
perhaps half of it over, I could keep the other half for
myself.
(CT)
Another heroin user told the Commission in confidential evidence
that heroin is so expensive that few people are simply users; most sell
at least some to help finance their habit.
Some users have also been involved in importing illegal drugs into
Australia, some of the drug being reserved for their own use and the
remainder sold on the streets to cover the cost of their trip.
Theft of Goods or Money
Mr R. J. Phillips, Commander of the Eastern Region of the Narcotics
Bureau, stated that ma n y users and traffickers had turned to crime
because of the cost of their habit. Drug-oriented crime such as theft
and robbery had become necessary to satisfy needs for mo n e y (OT 9783).
A senior South Australian Police officer estimated that some 50--60
percent of all armed hold-ups were committed by people associated with
the drug sub-culture.
Confidential evidence presented to the Commission by a senior New
South Wales police officer showed that from 1 January 1979 to August
1979, all 36 persons involved in a total of 57 armed hold-ups on
A160
premises other than those in which drugs were stored were either
influenced by drugs or committed the offences for the purpose of
obtaining drugs.
One drug user currently serving a sentence for thefts from a service
station and a TAB agency told the Commission in confidential session of
the circumstances surrounding these crimes:
Prior to committing the two armed hold-ups in June, 1977 I was
under a lot of pressure. I had obtained heroin on credit and I
could not obtain any more until I paid 2,000.00 I owed to the
dealer. I had also been threatened that if I did not pay I
would have 'my head blown off' .
(CT)
Many other drug users who gave evidence before the Commission had
either been charged with, and convicted of, theft or admitted to
rob b e r i e s . Stealing from parents, e m p l o y e r s , other drug users, and
breaking into houses and shops are some of the means by which the drug
user obtains money or goods which can be easily exchanged for money.
Prostitution
The Commission received a considerable body of evidence which
suggested that a large proportion of young girls working as prostitutes or in massage parlours were dependent on d r u g s . Detective Senior
Sergeant T. N. Ferguson of the Queensland Police Drug Squad said that it
could be expected that:
. ..young girls who are addicted to drugs will be easy prey for
persons intent on recruiting girls for brothels and massage
parlours, because of their need for large amounts of money to
purchase d r u g s .
(0T 2069)
The South Australian Police believe that about 60% of girls in massage
parlours in that State are heroin addicts. The massage parlours
themselves may be outlets for d r u g s .
Police witnesses from Western Australia, New South Wales, and the
Australian Capital Territory stated that massage parlours were not drug distribution centres in their areas. However, a Victoria Police Officer said in confidential evidence:
Prostitutes are organised to the extent that they are
trafficking in h e r o i n , mainly directed around St. Kilda. One
group was using street prostitutes and the others the massage
p a r l o u r s . I have niggling in the back of my mind that two
groups are related back further than what we have got. They
are organised in the sense that they can acquire half-pounds
and delivering it at Cap. level on the street.
(CT)
A161
A young drug user who was involved in pro s t i t u t i o n and massage
parlour work said:
Most girls working in massage parlours are on drugs, largely
M a n d r a x . I found it easier to work while on heroin because it
was easier to stomach the clients. Most girls find that they
cannot work without being stoned and a lot have got habits.
(CT)
Other Criminal Activities
A Queensland Police officer told the Commission in confidential
session that homosexual and lesbian activities in Brisbane were closely associated with drug trafficking and use. Several of the homosexuals
were suspected of committing acts of sodomy and indecently dealing with
young male juveniles.
Crimes of violence, and even murder, are becoming more frequent in
some a r e a s---par t i c u l a r l y Sydney and M e l b o u r n e . Detective Inspector G .
D. Baker of the Victoria Police CIB Drug Bureau, said:
A most disturbing feature has been the increase in crimes of
violence, especially those which involve firearms and other
weapons. In the first quarter of 1979 there have already been
three killings which were associated with the illicit drug
s c e n e .
(OT 22209)
New South Wales is also experiencing an upsurge in drug related
m u r d e r s . Since April 1978 eight murders connected either with a drug
'r i p - o f f ' or drug assault for the purpose of obtaining drugs for money
have o c c u r r e d . More frequently traffickers and users are arming
t h e m s e l v e s , not against the police but against each o t h e r , owing to the
increased violence associated with drug dealing.
The Commission received evidence from users of illicit drugs that
they had been involved in assaults and armed attacks on their families,
friends and s t r a n g e r s . One young heroin user has been convicted of the
murder of a drug dealer. Within the drug scene violence has become more
common as users seek to obtain drugs from dealers by f o r c e , or dealers
take mo n e y or drugs from users during a t r a n s a c t i o n . .
Violent illegal acts are also committed against p r o p e r t y---two users about whom the Commission heard evidence have been convicted of
attempted or actual b o m b i n g s . Forging cheques and bank withdrawals were also mentioned by a small number of users who appeared before the
C o m m i s s i o n .
A162
Chapter 6 Multiple Drug Use
DEFINING MULTIPLE DRUG USE
The Final Report of the Canadian Commission of Enquiry into the Non Medical Use of Drugs (The Le Dain Report) remarked on a growing social
awareness of, and concern about, 'multiple drug u s e ' or 'poly-drug use'. That Report suggested that multiple drug use could be examined from two perspectives (Open Exhibit 22, pp. 726--27):
* concurrent multiple drug use, where the emphasis is on the patterns
of use and the inter-relationships of the various substances
employed by a user at a particular time; and
* sequential multiple drug use, which involves the study of the
sequence in which each drug comes to be used or added to the user's
repertoire of drugs.
Four distinct types of concurrent multiple drug use were identified:
* intermittent, involving the use of two or more drugs but not at the
same time;
* simultaneous, where two or more drugs are ingested in such close
conjunction that their effects interact;
* cyclical, where drugs are taken consecutively so that the later ones
modify or counteract the terminal effects of the earlier ones; and
* interchangeable, which involves the substitution of one drug with
another of similar psycho-pharmacological properties (Open Exhibit 22, pp. 727 â 28) .
The Canadian Commissioners were careful to distinguish the
sequential multiple drug use concept from the idea of 'progression'
whereby it is often suggested that there is a tendency for drug users to
gradually move up the drug hierarchy to the 'stronger' or 'hard' dru g s .
'The emphasis of the term "sequential" is on the movement from one drug
to another without necessarily implying increasing danger or movement to more potent substances, both of which are connoted by the word
"progression"' (Open Exhibit 22, p. 727).
In their assessment of the evidence available to them on the extent
and patterns of multiple drug use they noted that in many studies the
terms used were not clearly defined. A multiple drug user was often
simply defined as a person who had 'ever used' more than one substance.
They suggested that definitions of multiple drug use should specify the levels of regularity and frequency of drug use and, if possible, supply relevant dosage information (Open Exhibit 22, p. 726).
THE AUSTRALIAN SITUATION
A significant number of witnesses who appeared before this
Commission offered the opinion that multiple drug use in its various
A163
forms was extremely widespread in this country. There was, however,
little factual information on which to base an assessment of the real
extent of the phenomenon, and what was forthcoming was usually the
product of studies subject to the same limitations noted by the Le Dain
Commissioners. A selection of relevant evi d e n c e---some of it supported by quantitative data of one kind or another but some of it merely the
expression of opinion by well qualified witnesses, follows:
Dr J. Krupinski, Director of Research, Mental Health Aut h o r i t y of
Victoria presented in evidence a report published in 1973 entitled 'Drug Use by the Young Population of Melbourne' (Open Exhibit 182), which
included a paper b y Mr A. Mackenzie on 'Patterns of Drug Abuse in the
Drug Sub-culture'. This particular survey was specifically directed at 697 heavy drug users in M e lbourne and pr o d u c e d the following details of
multiple drug use in this section of the community.
Drug types and combinations Percentage
Marihuana only 18.1
Marihuana and hallucinogens 33.0
Marihuana and stimulants (with or without hallucinogens) 15.6
Most or all six drug types 30.8
Other, one-only type 1.4
No illicit drugs 1.1
100.0
(Open Exhibit 182, p. 43)
In commenting on this table the author stated:
It will be noted that wi t h the one exception of marijuana, the
use of single drugs only was minimal. Eighteen per cent of our
respondents relied on marijuana only, whilst almost ha l f of
them used marijuana with hallucinogens or stimulants. Thirty
per cent had had experience with most, if not all, of the six
drug types studied; that is, marijuana, hallucinogens,
stimulants, cocaine, sedatives and narcotics.
(Open Exhibit 182, p. 43)
Dr J. E. Aldred, Senior Medical Off i c e r of the Poisons Division,
Health Commission of Victoria, said that as at January 1978 there were
1700 permits in Victoria for methadone under a methadone treatment
program for opiate addiction (0T 2660). A sample of 300 files of these
patients gave the following details of multiple drug use:
90 per cent (i.e., 270) gave a history of multiple drug use
over several years.
Of the 10 per cent (i.e., 30) giving a history of
single drug use,
A164
1 per cent (i.e., 3) were dependent on c o d e i n e ,
8 per cent (i.e., 24) stated to have used heroin
only, 1 per cent ( i . e . , 3) stated to have used opiates
(usually methadone) only.
(OT 2661â 62)
Dr G. Milner, Director of the V i c torian Alcoholics and Drug
Dependent Persons Services Branch, told the Commission that
approximately 6000 admissions were handled by his organisation during 1976. Of these, about 1400 persons were admitted because of narcotics
use problems. Dr Milner stated that 85 per cent of the narcotics users
had multiple drug use h a b i t s , 15 per cent using more than six drugs at
any one time and 70 per cent using between two and five illicit d r u g s .
Dr Milner went on to describe multiple drug use 'in our consumer
societies' as 'the rule rather than the exception'. He summed up as
fo l l o w s :
It is an error to consider any one drug alone. As the
consumption by an individual, or a society, of a given drug
increases, there is a spill-over effect; other drugs are also
increasingly used. Thus we now know, in contrast to old
American f o l k - l o r e , that the user of marihuana is usually a
drinker of alcohol and a smoker of cigarettes---more so than
the non-marihuana user. The heavy user takes even a greater
range of drugs, and tends to use increasing amounts. This
progression is common social experience; the more beer you
drink, the more aspirins you will take, and eventually you are
likely to develop other problems and be prescribed
tranquillisers and other d r u g s .
(OT 2602)
Another source of quantitative data relevant to the possible extent of multiple drug use in Australia is the annual statistical report of
the Australia Crime Intelligence Centre of the Commonwealth Police
(ACIC) entitled 'Drug Abuse in Australia' (Open Exhibit 42). A section
of the ACIC report is devoted to multiple drug involvement in reported
offences and by reported o f f e n d e r s . Some of the more significant
conclusions derived from the data for 1977 and previous years are
recorded below.
The proportion of offenders involved with most drug combinations
remained relatively steady compared with corresponding figures for 1976 although multiple involvement with different types of narcotics increased substantially. 13.6 per cent of narcotics offenders were involved with at least two narcotic type drugs compared with 7.5 per cent in 1976.
Some 30 per cent of offenders involved with narcotics were also
involved with cannabis while only 5 per cent of cannabis offenders
were involved with narcotics. These figures duplicated the 1976
results almost exactly.
A165
- Multiple drug involvement was most obvious with a m p h etamine and
hallucinogen offenders during 1977, e . g . , ne a r l y two-thirds of
hallucinogen offenders were also involved with cannabis but only 1
p e r cent of cannabis offenders were involved with hallucinogens.
- Generally speaking cannabis offenders in 1977 and in p r evious years
showed a low p r o p e n s i t y for involvement with other d r u g s .
- Under the definitions employed heroin, pethidine, m e t h a d o n e , etc.,
are drug types of the drug group narcotics. Similar categorisations are applied to other d r u g s . In 1977 81.3 per cent of all offenders
and 70.7 per cent of all offences (compared with 82.5 pe r cent and
73.0 per cent respectively in 1976) involved one drug type only.
84.9 per cent (compared with 85.7 per cent in 1976) of all offenders
were involved in one drug group only. These figures indicate no
significant change in multiple drug involvement over the period.
(Open Exhibit 42, pp. 16--20)
Not unexpectedly, the multiple drug involvement of reported offences and offenders derived from ACIC data runs at a much lower level (around
15 per cent on total figures) than the sort of m u ltiple drug usage
figures (85 per cent--90 p e r cent) reported b y other witnesses surveying
the known drug using population. This simply reflects the fact that a
multiple drug user is fairly unlikely, at any one time, to be actually
charged with offences involving more than one d r u g . It would be far
more usual for him to be charged only with an offence involving a single
drug found in his pos s e s s i o n at the time of arrest despite the distinct
possibility, borne out by the other data, that he was involved with
other illicit d r u g s .
Yet another perspective of multiple drug use in the c o m munity was
introduced by a senior medical officer of the Commonwealth Dep a r t m e n t of Health. In confidential session he presented an analysis of drug deaths in Sydney from 1972 to 1978 based on a review of coroners' reports. The
multiple drug use information from this study was restricted to deaths
caused b y alcohol in combination with other drugs. As a pro p o r t i o n of
total deaths, use of barbiturates with alcohol rose from 3.4 pe r cent
in 1972 to a peak of 34.7 per cent in 1977, and in 1978 accounted for
23.9 per cent. The pro p o r t i o n of total a l cohol-related deaths involving alcohol intake in combination with other drugs bottomed at 5.4 per cent
in 1974 and peaked at 28.3 per cent in 1977. In 1978 it was 19.8 per
cent.
Generally speaking, they tended to support the v i e w that multiple
drug use is on the increase and that the regular heavy users of illicit
drugs are likely to be persons who also use a mul t i p l i c i t y of d r u g s ,
even while demonstrating a preference for one par t i c u l a r substance.
Mr K. P. L a r k i n s , Director of the Geelong Centre for Alcohol and
Drug Dependence, noted that multiple drug use was par t i c u l a r l y common
amongst heavy users:
A166
What we have noticed with the group of 'problem users' is that
in most cases there is multiple drug useage. Users of
marihuana are also users of alcohol and similarly with users of
heroin. Heavy use of one substance seems to be accompanied by
heavy use of others.
(OT 3102)
In confidential evidence, a Brisbane clergyman closely involved with the teenage drug sub-culture in that city expressed his opinion that
multiple drug use was increasing. The witness informed the Commission:
People today take everything. They drink, they shoot a bit of
heroin, they smoke pot, they drop mushies, they sometimes take datura, and it is a really fruit-salad thing, plus it has
become n o n - s p e c i a l i s e d ...
(CT)
Dr W. E . M i c k l e b u r g h , Director of the Mental Health Branch of the
Australian Capital Territory Health Commission, stated that multiple drug use was becoming very common. He said:
People will have a drug of preference very often of course; if
they can get heroin they will get heroin; but when it is
difficult to get or they haven't got the means to get it or
something, they will often go onto something e l s e . Even when
they have got heroin they will often use other drugs as w e l l .
I would say that multiple drug use is the common pattern rather
than single drug use.
(OT 1591)
In speaking of his experiences with heavy drug u s e r s , Mr W. D .
Crews, Director of the Wayside Chapel Crisis Centre, Kings Cross,
S y d n e y , stated:
Many of the people we see are the heavy abusers and abuse all
sorts of drugs. They will smoke 60 cigarettes a day and drink
more alcohol than the average person drinks. They will take
far more analgesics than the average person, too. As well as
that they are taking heroin and other things. You find a
person is abusing whatever he can get that is abusable. That
is a bit of a change to a few years ago when the heroin scene
only existed. You had acid or other d r u g s . The alcohol scene
also existed and the drugs were not mixed too m u c h . Nowadays
they are becoming the one thing and people are abusing whatever they can get.
(OT 11780)
Mr D . A. G o r d o n , Executive Director and Founder of the WHOS
Fellowship offered the opinion that the 'age of multiple drug u s e ' had
a r r i v e d . He told the C o m m i s s i o n :
We seldom get an addict coming to us now who is simply using
one d r u g . Barbiturates are commonly used with h e r o i n . This, I
A167
think, is ma i n l y because of the po o r quality of the heroin that
is being sold in the streets or the lack of treatment
facilities for a d d i c t s . They try to bring themselves off
heroin habits with barbiturates or drugs like Mandrax
(methaqualone) and since this is becoming harder to get drugs
like Serepax (ox a z e p a m ) .
The point is that addiction, is not caused by a singular drug
and if a pe r s o n can't get the drug that he first started using
he will simply use another drug unless he is given a better
alternative and shown how to live without drugs at all.
(OT 10153)
Dr M. J. Roland, P s y chiatrist-in-Charge of the Wistaria House
Treatment Centre in Sydney, described some of the drug combinations
commonly employed by heavy u s e r s . She stated:
Some people addicted to heroin take other d r u g s , especially
mandrax, methaqualone and marihuana. Simultaneous use of
heroin and barbiturates, e s p e cially in females, is also not
u n c o m m o n ... Heroin addicts use methadone, dextromoramide
(Palfium) and Dilaudid ( h y d r o m o r p h o n e ) , Percodan (oxycodone) obtained from general practitioners or sold in the drug subÂ
culture .
(OT 14513)
Dr P. P. Manzie, a lecturer in the School of Community Medicine at
the University of New South Wales, informed the Commission that his
experience at the Brisbane Street Clinic, Sydney caused him to reject
the progression hypothesis that marihuana use inevitably led to hard
drugs. But he continued:
Admittedly, addictions never fail to be multiple. Other
n a r cotics---m o r p h i a , pethidine, Fortral, especially P a l f i u m---enter the spectrum. Mandrax is freely available. Lysergic
acid and amphetamine appear occasionally. Barbiturates and
chloral hydrate (Do r m e l , Noctec) would appear the most
damaging---unlike heroin, and like alcohol, they cause
permanent mental and physical i m p a i r m e n t . The m a j o r i t y of
pharmacists are careful in prescribing dangerous drugs. A few
doctors are less r e s p o n s i b l e , addicts know who will
'u n d e r s t a n d ' prescribe on request. F r o m the Brisbane Street
Drug Dependency Unit we have become aware of the dependency
potential of diazepam (Valium), need to resist being conned
into prescribing this psychotropic, to help sleep, or to allay
the tensions of 'coming d o w n ' . Male addicts often, but not
always, drink heavily, the women not so m u c h---a pattern shared
with the 'no r m a l ' population. All smoke to excess.
Barbiturates are usually injected intravenously, Carbrital
being a f a v o u r i t e .
...To sum up, the clients seen at Brisbane Street almost all
take a variety of d r u g s , including cannabis products, perhaps
A163
cost and availability be i n g d e t e r m i n a n t s ; but do not show a
pattern of progression from soft to hard.
(OT 12948)
Ms A. J. M. Bryant, Senior Social Worker from the Buoyancy
Foundation of Victoria, told the Commission that:
Whilst it has been found that most users have a particular
preference for a certain substance, multiple drug use is very
common.
(OT 3090)
In a submission originally tendered to the South Australian Royal
Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs and subsequently
incorporated into the evidence of this Commission, the Medical
Superintendent of the Hillcrest Hospital, Gilles Plains, South
Australia, Dr W. F. Salter said:
They are inclined to multi-drug use and not n e c e ssarily to any
specific drug. Originally when the drug-taking vogue came into being, there was a tendency for a person to become experienced
in the use of one drug and get to know that one well. More
recently it seems that the drug-taking po p u l a c e tend to use
anything that is available. There is also a habit of sharing
around drugs that are available at the time.
(OT 8104)
The widespread occurence of interchangeable multiple drug use in the community was further illustrated in an indirect fashion by a member of
the N e w South Wales Police Drug Squad. Senior S ergeant K. S. Astill
told the Commission that the best way of confirming that there was a
heroin shortage was by reference to the number of ph a r m a c y robberies.
These regularly increased in response to a 'drought' as addicts sought
heroin substitutes such as pethidine, dextromoramide (Palfium) and
methaqualone (Mandrax) (OT 23468).
A Health Department officer, in providing examples of multiple drug use, reported that of 15 patients admitted to two capital city hospitals in the two months immediately prior to his giving evidence, 10 had used
two or more drugs at one time or another. The four most extreme
examples of multiple drug use (i.e., 'ever used' drugs) were as follows:
Case history 1 (male): morphine, amphetamines, LSD, heroin, cocaine, marihuana, p silocybin/psilocin.
Case history 2 (male): LSD, heroin, marihuana, diazepam and other
tranquillisers, antidepressants, barbiturates.
Case history 3 (female): heroin, pethidine, cocaine, methadone, LSD, methaqualone, dextromoramide.
A169
Case history 4 (sex u n k n o w n ) : a m p h e t a m i n e s , LSD, m a r i h u a n a , hashish (Confidential Exhibit 25, p .1).
The witness indicated that a disturbing feature was that the
medicinal c o m p o u n d s , e . g . , the antidepressants, barbiturates, etc., employed by many of the multiple drug users presenting for treatment
were obtained on genuine prescriptions from medical practitioners.
The case histories of addicts' and former addicts' provided
elsewhere in this Part give useful examples of the prevalence of
multiple drug abuse.
OVERSEAS TRENDS
Dr D. de Souza of the Commonwealth Department of Health, informed
the Commission of the most recent developments discussed by the 28th
Session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs at Geneva in
Fe b r u a r y 1979. He said that although drug abuse characteristics varied considerably from one country to another, a rapidly increasing tendency toward multiple drug abuse had been reported from many a r e a s , including
Oceania (OT 21024 and 21042). Quoting from the conference report, Dr de
Souza c o n t i n u e d :
multiple drug a b u s e ,...with the exception of traditional opium
consumption, was emerging as the most common pattern of dr u g Â
taking in most countries of the w o r l d . Various kinds of
combinations were applied. Multiple drug abuse was often
combined wi t h consumption of alcohol. Easily available
substances were usually combined, often in order to experience a stronger effect or as a substitute for a drug of choice which
was not available.
(OT 21031)
A p a r t icular consumption pattern giving rise to increasing concern was the frequent taking of opiates in combination with other
psychoactive substances such as barbiturates, non-barbiturate sedative hypnotics and alcohol (OT 21026). Also widely reported were increases
in the abuse of cannabis/alcohol combinations especially amongst young persons (OT 21027).
GENERAL
Clearly, Australia is not alone in experiencing an upsurge in
multiple drug u s e---it is a world-wide p h e n o m e n o n . The precise causes
are difficult to ascertain. Perhaps the increasingly widespread
availability of a va r i e t y of drugs both legal and illegal, coupled with
short-term fluctuations in the supply of heroin and cannabis, have been the main factors leading to multiple, or poly-drug use especially
amongst the regular drug taking segment of the population.
A170
The increasing tendency toward multiple drug use obviously has
important implications for the planning and implementation of all
programs---law enforcement, education, treatment and rehabilitation, etc.---aimed at arresting the drug problem. Administrators need to
recognise that multiple drug use introduces an additional perspective which must be taken into account if the anti-drug programs they control
are to continue to address themselves to the problems of the real world
and thus remain fully effective.
A171
A172
Part I V
T he Factual Term s o f R eference
Part IV The Factual Terms of Reference
C h a p t e r 1. P r o d u c t i o n of I l l egal D r u g s
C h a p t e r 2. M e t h o d s o f I m p o r t a t i o n o f Illegal Drugs
C h a p t e r 3. E x t e n t of I m p o r t a t i o n o f Illegal Drugs
C h a p t e r 4. E x p o r t a t i o n of I l l e g a l D r u g s
C h a p t e r 5. T r a f f i c k i n g in I l l e g a l D rugs
C h a p t e r 6. T e r m o f R e f e r e n c e C:
The E x t e n t of
(i) I l l egal Use of D r u g s
(ii) Illegal D i v e r s i o n o f Drugs
( H i ) M i s u s e of D r ugs so far as is
R e l e v a n t to the I l l egal U s e
of D r ugs
C h a p t e r 7. The O r g a n i s e d B a s i s o f D r u g - r e l a t e d C r i m e
T h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s c a l l e d Ter m s o f R e f e r e n c e (a), ( b ) ,
(c) a n d (d) 'The F a c t u a l T e r m s of R e f e r e n c e ' b e c a u s e t h e y
r e q u i r e d the C o m m i s s i o n to a s s e s s s i t u a t i o n s w h i c h in f a c t
e x i s t . T h o s e T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e r e q u i r e an i n q u i r y a n d r e p o r t
u p o n :
(a) t h e e x t e n t of, a n d the m e t h o d s u s e d in:
(i) ( H ) ( H i )
the i l l e g a l i m p o r t a t i o n of d r u g s ;
the i l l e g a l e x p o r t a t i o n of d r u g s ;
the i l l e g a l p r o d u c t i o n of d r u g s ;
an d
(iv) the i l l e g a l t r a f f i c k i n g in d r u g s ;
(b) t h e p l a c e s w h e r e d r u g s m e n t i o n e d in p a r a g r a p h (a)
a r e p r o d u c e d o r f r o m w h i c h t h e y a r e o b t a i n e d a n d
t h e p l a c e s to w h i c h t h o s e d r u g s a r e s e nt;
(c) th e e x t e n t to w h i c h :
(i) ( H )
d r u g s a r e i l l e g a l l y u s e d ;
d r u g s l a w f u l l y o b t a i n e d are d i v e r t e d
to i l l e g a l t r a f f i c k i n g or i l l e g a l
( H i )
u s e s ; or
d r u g s a r e m i s u s e d in s o far as s u c h
m i s u s e is r e l e v a n t to the i l l e g a l
use o f dr u g s ;
A173
(d) t h e e x t e n t (if any) to w h i c h t h e i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s
m e n t i o n e d in p a r a g r a p h (a) o r the i l l e g a l us e or
t h e d i v e r s i o n m e n t i o n e d in p a r a g r a p h (c) a r e e n g a g e d
in, d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , b y p e r s o n s w h o e n g a g e ,
on an o r g a n i s e d b a s i s , in o t h e r i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s ,
w h e t h e r or n o t r e l a t e d to d r u g s ;
It w a s f o r e s h a d o w e d in P a r t I C h a p t e r 3 t h at, b e c a u s e
e v i d e n c e r e c e i v e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n w a s i n v a r i a b l y r e l e v a n t
to m o r e than o n e o f t h e s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n s p o s e d b y th e T e r m s
o f R e f e r e n c e , it w o u l d m a k e f o r a m u c h c l e a r e r R e p o r t i f the
f a c t u a l m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g to t h e s e f o u r T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e
w e r e c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r t h e h e a d i n g s s e t o u t a b o v e . T e r m o f
R e f e r e n c e (c) c o n t a i n s t h r e e s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n s a n d t h e
a n s w e r s to t h e m i n e v i t a b l y o v e r l a p o n e a n o t h e r . F o r t h i s
r e a s o n t h e t i t l e to C h a p t e r 6 is l o n g a n d i n e l e g a n t .
U n d e r t h o s e h e a d i n g s a r e s u m m a r i s e d m a n y t h o u s a n d s o f p a g e s
o f e v i d e n c e so th e s u m m a r y i t s e l f r e f l e c t s c o n c l u s i o n s w h i c h
t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s f o r m e d on t h i s e v i d e n c e . No r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
a r e m a d e in t h i s P a r t b u t r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e e l s e w h e r e in
t h e R e p o r t a r e i n f l u e n c e d by th e C o m m i s s i o n ' s c o n c l u s i o n s on
e v i d e n c e r e l a t i v e to t h e s e f a c t u a l t e r m s o f r e f e r e n c e .
The C o m m i s s i o n w a s n o t a s k e d in its T e r m s o f R e f e r e n c e to
i d e n t i f y a n d n a m e p e o p l e w h o m a y b e b r e a k i n g the law. It
t h e r e f o r e t o o k t h e v i e w t h a t it s f u n c t i o n wa s n o t to i n v e s t i Â
g a t e a n d i d e n t i f y l a w b r e a k e r s a n d that the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
d e t e c t i o n a n d p r o s e c u t i o n o f s u c h p e r s o n s wa s a m a t t e r f o r l a w
e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s . C a r e h a s b e e n t a k e n n o t to n a m e s u s p e c t e d
p e r s o n s in the R e p o r t , j u s t as c a r e w a s t a k e n in the c o n d u c t o f
th e C o m m i s s i o n n o t to p u b l i c i s e th e a c t i v i t i e s o f p e r s o n s f o r
w h i c h t h e y h a d n o t b e e n c o n v i c t e d . T h i s a p p r o a c h w a s a d o p t e d to
e n s u r e t h a t the n o r m a l p r o c e s s e s o f th e l a w w e r e n o t i m p e d e d .
A174
Chapter 1 Production of Illegal Drugs
INTRODUCTION
For convenience, drugs of abuse may be considered as falling into two
broad categories. The first category includes natural plant products
and their immediate derivatives. Most of these ha v e , or had, important
or valuable applications in medicine (including folk medicine) but
several of them never had any real medicinal uses, being employed in
social and religious ceremonial and ritual. These products come from
well defined, even if widely spread, geographical areas. Most have
been replaced in Western systems of medicine by synthetic or semiÂ
synthetic substitutes, leaving the natural materials with only limited applications in modern medicine. It is in this category that many of
the most widely abused drugs are found. They include opium, cannabis,
coca, and the naturally occurring hallucinogens found in some species of fungi and other plants such as cacti and vines. A few natural animal
products are also known to have hallucinogenic properties.
The second category of abused substances comprises the modern chemo therapeutic drugs developed for highly specific medical purposes but
sometimes found to have side-effects that can lead to the development of dependence in patients taking them. Those side-effects may render them interesting or desirable to those seeking distinctive life styles.
This category includes sedatives and hypnotics, such as the barbiturates and methaqualone, stimulants such as the amphetamines and pain killers such as codeine and pentazocine.
Several of the natural products in the first category, especially
the opiates, cannabis, and cocaine, are produced in great quantities in certain parts of the world to satisfy the considerable and continuing
demand. They enter the illicit drug market mostly through the
activities of organised drug traffickers. It is here that drug abuse
and large-scale crime have their closest links.
For reasons connected with their relatively high cost and restricted availability (due to the actions of law enforcement agencies) attempts have been made to produce some of these substances in Australia. For
example, cannabis has been introduced successfully in many places
although the hemp-producing variety dates here from the days of the
First Fleet. Australia has the capacity to become self-sufficient in
cannabis. The coca bush has not been grown in Australia but opium
poppies are commercially cultivated in Tasmania to obtain morphine and codeine for pharmaceutical purposes. However, illicit opium production is not known her e . Generally speaking, there is no significant illicit manufacturing of narcotics in Australia.
In producing countries, while certain of the natural plant products and derivatives subject to abuse are prohibited or strongly discouraged, others do not appear to warrant official sanctions. The national
authorities may find it very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent
production of prohibited substances. This could be either because the
A175
producers rely o n the crops for their livelihood, because the p roduct is
n e c essary for the wellbeing or survival of the pop u l a t i o n groups using
it, for reasons of political expediency, or because the central
government does not enjoy full control throughout the country. For
e x a m p l e , unless grown under licence, opium cultivation is pro h i b i t e d in p r a c tically all the countries where it is p roduced but there continues
to be massive output in some areas. In South America coca plants are
extensively cultivated and the leaves are chewed by the Indian
p o p ulation as a means of adapting to their harsh geographical and
economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Thus it is difficult for the authorities to ban
the p r o duction and use of coca without seriously affecting the life
style of these Indians. Illicit trafficking in coca and cocaine is
therefore possible. It has to be recognised that, as long as there is a
demand for these so-called recreational d r u g s , attempts will be made by
those seeking profits to meet that demand, w hether p r o d u c t i o n is
permitted or prohibited.
Pharmaceutical substances in the second category are either legally imported into A u s tralia or are manufactured within the country.
Supplies of these drugs reaching illicit users are m o s t l y stolen or
otherwise diverted from manufacturers and pharmacists or obtained
through doctors, for example as a result of overprescribing. Illicit
attempts to manufacture drugs such as amphetamines and lysergic acid
diethylamide (LSD) have been detected from time to time in Australia but this production has never been significant in the overall p icture of
drug abuse. Therefore, restrictions placed on the importation and
prescribing of certain drugs considered d a n g e r o u s , or their total
prohibition, are fairly effective ways of reducing abuse since it is not financially rewarding for illicit importers to face the risks involved in importing drugs which have only a relatively low 's t r e e t ' market
v a l u e .
THE OPIATES
Opium Production and Illicit Narcotics
Historically, cultivation of the opium poppy, p apaver somniferum, was widespread over large parts of Asia (the modern countries of Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China and some other areas). The
poppy can grow at fairly high altitudes in poor soils, making it an
ideal crop in many s i t u a t i o n s . Opium poppies are now grown legally in
Turkey, Pakistan, India, and also in Australia (Tasmania), but there is large-scale illicit production of opium in B u r m a , Thailand and p ossibly Laos (the Golden Triangle countries), Pakistan, Afghanistan, and M e x i c o . It is reported that China no longer produces any opium but there ma y be
some illicit production in Iran and India.
As far as Australia is c o n c e r n e d , evidence received b y the
Commission in Australia and information gathered during overseas visits indicated clearly that the major source of illicit opiate narcotics is
the Golden Triangle, a rugged highland area of some 60 000 square
k i l o m e t r e s , centred on the borders of B u r m a , Thailand and Laos but
considered by some experts to extend into South China.
A176
Estimates of total op i u m output from the Golden Triangle have varied considerably. Figures range from 450 tonnes in 1975 to 250â 300 tonnes in 1977, of which Thailand was believed to have produced only one-quarter, to as m u c h as 500--700 tonnes annually, around 400 tonnes in B u r m a ,
130--200 tonnes in Thailand, and an unknown amount in Laos. The opium
is produced by hill tribes living in scattered, semi-permanent villages in mountainous and densely-forested areas of northern Thailand, no r t h  eastern Burma and north-western Laos. The people practise a ' slash-and- burn' style of agriculture, destroying areas of forest to plant their
c r o p s . The soil is quickly impoverished and whole villages then move to
a new location. As a consequence, there is little regard for political
boundaries and the national authorities find it exceedingly difficult to penetrate into the region or to keep track of the semi-nomadic t r i b e s .
Opium is a convenient cash crop for these people, and almost the
only one available to tribes living over 1000 metres above sea level.
It is easy to handle and transport and gives a reasonable return; it is
also used by the people themselves for medicinal and recreational
purposes. The remainder of the crop is sold or bartered to traffickers,
a practice which the tribes see as legitimate trading. It is reported
that the average annual opium output per family is 2 k i l o g r a m s . In 1976
the price received for opium was about $200 per kilogram. Incomes are
therefore small and if acceptable substitute crops could be found,
offering the hill tribes a higher income and standard of living, opium
production might be greatly reduced. This strategy is being pursued
actively in some places, especially in Thailand w h e r e , for e x a m p l e ., the 'King's Hill Tribe Development P r o j e c t ' has been in operation since
1969.
After purchasing the opium, traffickers may elect to extract the
morphine base close to the production a r e a . This process, which
requires large amounts of lime and other s u p p l i e s , reduces the volume
and weight to be handled subsequently to a tenth. The morphine base or
opium is carried by caravans to illicit heroin laboratories in the
B u r m a â Thailand border a r e a , usually in Burma but also in Thailand.
There heroin is produced using chemicals, especially acetic anhydride brought from southern Thailand, first by road and then by animal
t r a n s p o r t .
Most heroin appears in two forms,---No. 3 heroin, a granular form
with some coloration and commonly referred to as 'beige rocks' 'brown
rocks' or 'grey rocks' and No. 4 heroin, a white powder. The purity or
concentration of diamorphine in both forms can vary because of several
f a c t o r s , including the skill of the manufacturer or perhaps the wish to have a particular level of purity to meet a particular market. However, it is generally recognised that although heroin No. 3 can have a purity
as high as 80 per cent diamorphine and heroin No. 4 can have a purity of
90 per cent or m o r e , most of the 'pure' No. 3 heroin imported into
Australia has a concentration of between 35 and 55 p e r cent diamorphine
while most of the 'pure' heroin No. 4, imported has purity of between 80
and 90 per c e n t . The heroin then enters the illicit world market mainly
through Burma or Thailand. Thailand appears to be the immediate source of most of the heroin coming to Australia.
A177
The use of opiate narcotics is p r o h i b i t e d in Burma and T h a i l a n d and
the respective governments actively engage in suppression. H o w e v e r they have a formidably difficult task. The Burmese G o v e rnment readily
concedes that Burma has a substantial local drug problem. The Burmese
army and police force are actively trying to prevent drug p r o d u c t i o n and
trafficking but they face great problems because of the unsettled
conditions in the narcotics pro d u c i n g areas, e s p ecially the border
r e g i o n s , and the presence there of p o werful dissident and insurgent
g r o u p s , some of which are m o tivated pol i t i c a l l y and others b y purely
commercial considerations. The resources available to the Government
are not sufficient to dislodge these g r o u p s .
In Thailand, efforts to suppress narcotics p r o duction are made by
the G o v e r n m e n t , pri m a r i l y through the Police Narcotics S u p p ression
Centre, but with inadequate resources and limited s u c c e s s . In addition, the Commission received evidence that corruption among some Thai
mil i t a r y and police officers inhibited those efforts.
The situation in Laos is not known with any degree of certainty.
The Laotian Government has made a pu b l i c commitment to drug abuse
control but it has also stated that it cannot be expected to take action
against drug p r o duction and trafficking w ithout extensive f oreign aid.
Informed witnesses appearing before the Commission all ag r e e d that South-East A s i a---the Golden T r i a n g l e--- was the main source of illicit
narcotics in Australia. However, small individual importations m a y come from the other areas. This is being c a r efully monitored.
Transit Countries
Ma n y times in Australia and in S o u th-East Asia the C o m m i s s i o n was
told that international drug traffickers had the finance and p l a n n i n g
skills to vary the routes and methods of their smuggling activities with considerable dexterity, speed and efficiency. However, mo s t expert
evidence suggested that transit points of special concern to Aus t r a l i a at present were those in Malaysia and Indonesia, with S i ngapore of
lesser i m p o r t a n c e .
Malaysia is the major transit point for Golden Triangle opiates and
also Thai-produced cannabis tops coming to Australia. The reasons for
the importance of Malaysia as a transit area include its ready local
m a r k e t , its closeness to Burma and Thailand, its land, sea and air
connections with those countries, and its long coastline w h i c h is
difficult to patrol and is dotted with innumerable, mostly u n o c c u p i e d , islands. Penang and Kuala Lumpur have direct international air
connections with Bangkok and Rangoon. In the near future Ch i a n g Mai
(Thailand), where large-scale drug trafficking takes place, will also operate as an international airport, connecting directly with Malaysia. Penang is at present a major transit area for illegal drugs en route to
Australia by sea (yachts, passenger liners and cargo ships) or air.
A178
Malaysia continues to amend its laws by introducing heavier
penalties, and in the future traffickers may seek to by-pass this
country, as they now tend to by-pass S i n g a p o r e . But while the
availability of alternative routes makes it relatively easy for
smugglers carrying drugs to Australia to by-pass Singapore, it would not be as easy for them to by-pass Malaysia.
The Commission received considerable evidence that Indonesia has
been, and is b e i n g , used as a transit area for drugs coming to Australia
by both air and sea. Indonesia, along with Papua New Guinea, is
Australia's closest neighbour, part of West Irian being approximately 200 km from Horn island, a distance well within the range of virtually
all aircraft. Likewise, Keopang is approximately 750 km from Darwin, a
distance well within the range of most light aircraft.
There seems little doubt that efficient law enforcement has resulted in a substantial diminution in the use of Singapore as a transit area
for drugs bound for Australia.
Licit Cultivation of Opium Poppies in Australia
In Australia, three companies are licensed to manufacture opium
derivatives from opium poppies grown in T a s m a n i a . These companies are
Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd, Tasmanian Alkaloids Pty Ltd. and Abbott
Chemical Pty Ltd. A witness told the Commission that a worldwide
shortage of morphine and codeine had followed the cessation of opium
cultivation in Turkey in 1971 and a number of countries, including India and Australia, increased their acreages of opium poppies in order to
overcome these shortages. Following a program of research and plant
breeding trials in the late 1960s and early 1970s commercial opium poppy cultivation began in Tasmania in 1971. This industry is based on poppy
straw extraction, that is, use of the dried stems and seed capsules of
the plant to obtain the alkaloids. No opium is produced at any stage.
A po p p y straw extraction plant was set up at Port Fairy, Victoria, in
1972 and another plant was later constructed at Westbury in Tasmania.
Tasmanian poppy growers must be licensed by the State Minister for
Health and are required to be contracted to one of the two companies and
to sell their entire crop to that company. The Poppy Advisory and
Control B o a r d , established by the Tasmanian Government and comprising representatives of the Departments of Health (Commonwealth and S t a t e ) , Agriculture, and Police, is responsible for enforcing the provisions of legislation relating to this industry and effects liaison with the two
producing companies. The Board's responsibilities for control and
supervision are comprehensive, embracing annual production, maximum stock holdings, security arrangements, factory p r o c e d u r e s , and
transportation of poppy straw, morphine base and codeine.
Licit poppy growing in Australia is limited to Tasmania, principally for reasons of security but also because the climatic conditions there
are suitable. In fact, Tasmanian-grown opium poppies give a higher
yield of alkaloids than crops grown in most other countries. A police
A179
witness told the Com m i s s i o n that poppy crops are cultivated in all parts of Tasmania except the west and south-west. In 1976â 77 the total
acreage of p oppies was 17 242, there were 747 licensed g r o w e r s , and the
yield of poppies was 9071 tonnes.
A c c ording to a Commonwealth Department of Health w i t n e s s , appearing before the C o m mission in 1977, Turkey's resumption of poppy cultivation on a large scale in 1974 could me a n that the world shortage of opiates
would be overcome quickly and a dangerous oversupply situation could
d e v e l o p . It should be noted that Turkey does not now produce opium but
utilises poppy straw for extraction of alkaloids. In final hearings in
1979, a senior Commonwealth Department of Health witness said that
Australia had recently come under some criticism i n t ernationally on
account of the world overproduction of opiates, to which Australia was
contributing. It was expected that b y 1985 the world would be producing
half as much again as would be required for legitimate p u r p o s e s . This
could cause the price of morphine to fall v e r y low and thereby encourage
farmers in countries such as Turkey and India to sell their opium on the
illicit market. He emphasised that this was not actually happening but
it was a definite risk. A l though Turkey had turned to po p p y straw
p r o c e s s i n g , if the farmers there could not make a satisfactory living
that way they would be tempted to go back to lancing the green poppy
capsules and collecting opium. At present there were heavy penalties
for doing this, and the Turkish authorities claimed there was no leakage of opium from Turkey, but he pointed out that Turkey was a relatively
poor country in b a d economic circumstances. Australia was therefore
coming under pressure to reduce the area of poppy cultivation b y at
least 20 per cent.
Illicit Use of Tasmanian Poppies
Several witnesses referred to the p o s s ibility of stolen poppies from Tasmanian poppy fields being used for illicit production of n a r c o t i c s . Most witnesses agreed that detected thefts had to date been on a very
small scale but several expressed the vi e w that security measures
required strengthening. A Tasmanian police officer said that as far as
he knew the only law enforcement agency with responsibility for the
security of the p o p p y crops was the State Police. To his knowledge the
Commonwealth Police was not involved in the security of crops but had
some responsibility during their transportation for processing. He
believed that the Bureau of Narcotics was not involved at a l l . The
Acting Assistant Dir e c t o r (Pharmaceutical) of the Commonwealth
Department of Health, Mr Murray Murton, told the Commission that he
could see no possibility of narcotics being diverted from the factories because the record-keeping was so accurate (0T 1361). A representative of the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association agreed that there was no possibility of leakages of narcotics from factories. Dr R.
C. Webb, Director of the Commonwealth Department of He a l t h in Victoria
said that to date no containers had arrived at Port Fa i r y with seals and
padlocks broken, and there had been no reason to suspect that shipments
had been tampered with or that stated weights were inaccurate (OT 2845).
Whilst interference with poppy crops has resulted in the removal of
green capsules, there is no indication of attempts to produce opium.
A180
Evidence was given that some people were stealing green capsules and
boiling them in water, then evaporating most of the w a t e r , in an attempt
to obtain a strong solution of m o r p h i n e . Witnesses said that these
methods were generally unrewarding but a few users had claimed some
s uccess. A senior pharmacist employed b y the Tasmanian Department of
Health said that arrangements for boiling up capsules had b e e n found in
the b u s h and that people returning from leave to drug treatment centres
sometimes had positive urine tests for morphine as a result of drinking
a tea made from poppy capsules. It had been confirmed that a recent
death in Tasmania was due to an overdose of alkaloids (morphine,
thebaine and codeine) which were present in the body in the same
proportions as in poppy capsules, indicating that the deceased had
consumed a br e w made from stolen capsules. The witness could not say
how many capsules the deceased used. Traces were found in an otherwise
empty container, but the quantity consumed was not known.
Witnesses pointed out that although methods of using stolen poppy
capsules might be very primitive at the present time, development of
sophisticated means of extracting the morphine had to be expected.
Tighter security was therefore essential. A Tasmanian police officer
told the Commission that reported cases of interference with poppy crops rose from 15 in 1976 to 41 in 1978. A witness employed by the
Department of Health Services thought that the 15 reported cases in 1976 were only a small percentage of the actual number of cases of
interference that occurred. Only one person was prosecuted in 1976 but
five persons were prosecuted in each of the years 1977 and 1978. This
witness thought that if papaver bracteatum poppies could be substituted for papaver somniferum security would be easier as people would be less
inclined to interfere with papaver bracteatum c r o p s . Earlier, Inspector T. W. Cashion, head of the Tasmanian Drug Bureau, explained to the
Commission that the alkaloid thebaine is obtained from papaver
bracteatum and that this substance can be used to produce codeine. This
plant does not produce opium (OT 1130).
Illicit Cultivation of Opium Poppies in Australia
There is little evidence that opium poppies are grown illicitly in
Australia but a South Australian witness reported that poppies were
being grown in the W oodnerâ Elliston area of the Eyre Peninsula and that
considerable acreages were involved. He said that the area was rather
desolate with farms situated 20--30 miles apart. A Bureau of Customs
officer working in the region subsequently confirmed these statements. The witness thought that the crop was being exported out of the State
and did not suggest that opium was being p r o d u c e d .
Illicit Manufacture of Heroin in Australia
Although licit production of the opium poppy and opiates is closely controlled in Australia, it appears that a loophole for illicit
manufacturing of heroin exists, namely employing codeine phosphate
obtained from proprietary preparations. Codeine is a Schedule 3 drug
and some preparations containing it can be obtained from pharmacists
without prescription. It is a useful analgesic and cough-suppressant.
A senior pharmacist employed by the NSW Health Commission told the
A181
Commission that in one instance a p h a r m a c i s t sold six dozen packets of
Codiphen (which contains codeine phosphate), each containing 100
tablets, to a single p u r c h a s e r . Un d e r appropriate conditions this
q u antity of tablets could yield about 36 grams of heroin. He added that
a l though this p h a r m a c i s t was not b reaking the law, he was not abiding by
the spirit of the law. Since this evidence was given, sales of
analgesics containing codeine have been restricted.
The Commission was informed that heroin was not legally manufactured in A u s t r a l i a , and until 1975 it was believed that there was no illegal
manufacturing. H o w e v e r , in 1975 and 1976, five illicit heroin
laboratories were d i s c o v e r e d : three in Sydney, one in M e l b o u r n e , and one in Cairns. The method used in m a n u f a cturing the heroin was u n i q u e , and
A u stralia had the doubtful distinction of being the first country in
wh i c h the process was used for illicit purposes. Codeine phosphate
o btained from o v e r-the-counter sales of tablets or through thefts from p h a r macies was converted into morphine and then into heroin. The
operators used a recipe that originally appeared in a scientific
publ i c a t i o n in 1951. The process was limited to a small batch scale,
using 20â 30 g of c odeine at a time. M r M.A. B e s l e y , Secretary of the
Department of Bus i n e s s and Consumer Affairs, added that the last of
laboratories was d e tected in April 1976 and since then there had been
no evidence of other laboratories starting to operate (OT 73â 74). An
informed wit n e s s said h e believed reports that ;an illicit laboratory
in Sydney was c u rrently manufacturing bet w e e n 5 and 50 kg of heroin a
w e e k we r e most un l i k e l y to be t r u e .
Comments on Illicit Production of the Opiates.
The evidence dealing with production of the opiates showed that a
certain security risk attaches to the Tasmanian opium poppy crop.
However, as long as thefts and diversions can be kept to a low level,
and if supplies of narcotics continue to reach Australia from overseas
sources, direct p r o duction of narcotics from opium poppies is unlikely to be a significant pro b l e m in this country. This situation could
change if interception of illegal importations created a serious
shortage of 1 street' heroin. As far as the indirect manufacturing of
heroin from codeine is concerned, because of the limited output
possibilities, the need for adequate supplies of the starting materials and laboratory facilities, and the disadvantageous cost structure of the operation; all this is likely to remain a challenge to enterprising
individuals with some knowledge of chemistry rather than a serious
breach in narcotic control e f f o r t s .
COCAINE
Cocaine is obtained from the leaves of the shrubs belonging to the
genus Erythroxylon which are natives of western South America. The main source is Erythroxylon coca. Coca leaves have been consumed for many
centuries b y Indians living in the high Andes and also to some extent by
those living at lower altitudes in tropical situations, and this use
still continues. The leaves are generally masticated, often with the
addition of lime or ash, but in some circumstances infusions are
prepared from the l e a v e s . It is claimed that the stimulating and
energising properties of the leaves relieve the fatigue and hunger
A182
associated with extreme poverty or during long journeys when little food is available. The Indians also use coca as a remedy for a variety of
illnesses, to ensure longevity, as an a p h r o d i s i a c , and in religious
practices. Reports about the spectacular properties of coca reached
Europe and North America around the end of the nineteenth century, and
large amounts of leaves were imported and used to make coca wines,
tonics, and patent medicines of all k i n d s . This era was of relatively
short duration but at this time the main active principle of coca was
isolated and named 'cocaine'. No fewer than 13 other alkaloids are
present in the natural coca, but these have b e e n little studied.
Cocaine proved to be a highly effective local anaesthetic, the world's
first, and it came to be widely used in surgical and dental operations.
However, it also proved to be a powerful central nervous system (CNS)
stimulant producing pleasurable sensations that caused users to become psychologically dependent. It also was found to have considerable
t o x i c i t y . Synthetic local anaesthetics such as procaine and lignocaine, which are less toxic and free from the CNS stimulating effects, are now
very generally employed but cocaine continues to be used in surgical
procedures involving the eye, nose, throat and urethral mucosa.
Legislative action to restrict the free use of cocaine was taken
in the United States b etween 1906 and 1914, and the Harrison Narcotics
Act of 1914 (with amendments in 1922, 1951, and 1956) really marked the
end of the 'cocaine e r a ' though cocaine remains a prestigious, but
c o s t l y , recreational drug in some sections of the c o m m u n i t y . In the
last decade or so there has been a renewed interest in cocaine in the
United States, and some South American countries are reported to have
increased their output ve r y considerably. So far, this renewed interest appears not to have spread to any extent outside the United States and
some parts of Europe.
Most of the world's legally produced coca is grown in Bolivia and
Peru. Figures released by the Peruvian Government in 1975 showed that
pro d u c t i o n was authorised in 11 of the 24 departments of the country
wi t h over half the total annual output coming from the Department of
C u z c o . Local consumption inside the country accounted for 60 per cent
of the crop and it can be assumed that the rest was exported or made
available for export. In Bolivia in 1975 coca growing was legal in all
departments but actual production was confined to a few areas. United
States estimates indicated that more than half of the Bolivian
pop u l a t i o n were consumers of coca and that three and a half times as
mu c h coca was consumed locally as was exported legally. It is by no
means certain that coca production is confined, or even largely
confined, to these two countries or that all coca production there is
under government control. There is evidence of extensive illegal
production in Argentina, B r a z i l , C o l o m b i a , and Ecuador but no firm data are available.
Illicit laboratories in the coca-producing countries prepare cocaine (usually the hydrochloride salt) for illegal export. Depending on the
level of refinement the product may be relatively pure (90 â 100 per
cent) white flakes or a considerably less pure (70--85 per cent)
material containing non-alkaloid impurities. A fairly recent trend in the producing countries is reported to be the preparation of a crude
A183
paste from coca w h i c h is dried and used for smoking. Reports suggest
that some interest has been shown in the United States in this method of
using coca. Usually, in countries outside South America, cocaine 'cut' with a variety of substances (including m a n n i t o l , lactose, glucose,
etc.) is self-administered by sniffing or injection.
There is no evidence to suggest that any cocaine is produced in
A u s t r a l i a .
Mr M. A. Bes l e y agreed that Bolivia, C o l o m b i a , Ecuador, Brazil and
Peru were the world's major sources of cocaine, and that cocaine from
South America we n t to illicit markets throughout the world. He also
said that there was little information about the demand for, or
availability of, cocaine in Australia during the 1970s. Seizures in
Australia often proved to be diversions of the hydrochloride salt from
legitimate supplies or to consist largely of synthetics such as procaine (OT 85).
Mr J. L. D a v i s , a senior pharmacist employed b y the South Australian
Department of Public Health, told the South Australian Royal Commission on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs that cocaine was a 'middle-class w h i t e '
drug in A m e r i c a , and was very much in vogue and in d e m a n d . It was
smuggled from South America in large quantities. Legal supplies
intended for surgical patients were also ending up on the streets of New
York and elsewhere (OT 8616).
Dr D. de Souza, First Assistant Director-General, Therapeutics
Division, Commonwealth Department of Health, reported on a m eeting of
the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs in F ebruary 1979. The
meeting was told that use of cocaine has recently expanded in No r t h and
South America and W estern E u r o p e , and now constitutes a serious problem.
It was estimated that several million people abused this drug. Some
20--30 thousand tonnes of coca leaves are produced annually for the
illicit m anufacturing of cocaine and about half a million people are
involved in production. Dr de Souza said that smoking coca paste was a
recent development and gave rise to rapid compulsion to continue u s e .
It frequently caused irritability, illusions, hallucinations and acute paranoid psychosis as well as problems of social adjustment (OT 21026).
Two senior representatives of the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control said it was believed that cocaine was a new and serious threat
to the world drug abuse situation. There was greatly increased
cultivation in South A m e r i c a , most of which was going to the United
States and Canada. One of these witnesses said that medical experience
had shown that cocaine 'is nothing to pl a y with'.
HALLUCINOGENS
Hallucinogenic substances are either derived from natural sources, such as the peyote cactus (source of m e s c a l i n e ) , various mushrooms
(sources of psilocybin, psilocin, etc.) and vines or are synthetic
A184
compounds like lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and phencyclidine (P G P ) . There are no accepted medical uses for hallucinogens apart from PGP,
which is used as an anaesthetic in v e t erinary practice.
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD)
Illicit pro d u c t i o n of LSD mainly takes place in the United S t a t e s ,
the United Ki n g d o m and W estern E u r o p e . The illicit market for LSD is
probably worldwide although demand tends to be concentrated in the more developed countries. Other witnesses agreed that the United Kingdom and the United States were the main producers of LSD coming to Australia.
Dr D. de Souza, Fi r s t Assistant D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l , Therapeutics Division, of the Commonwealth Department of Health, said that hallucinogens were being abused in ma n y countries although the magnitude of the problem
seemed to be declining; in particular, use of LSD was falling off. He
pointed out that a large LSD factory in the United Kingdom was closed
down in 1978, cutting off an important source of supply (OT 21027). Mr
M. A. Besley, Secretary of the Department of Business and Consumer
Affairs, described LSD production in Australia. Illicit manufacturing commenced in the late 1960s, and two instances were detected but the
product was of an inferior quality. Since then LSD had continued to be
produced irregularly. The popularity of LSD in Australia fell rapidly
after 1974. A n y that was made here was of low quality. Local
manufacturers had attempted to counterfeit the various types of imported LSD wh i c h enjoyed a higher market price on account of its reputation for
greater purity. The LSD produced overseas was readily purchased by
experienced and devoted users (OT 75 â 76).
Commander D . J . Mitchell of the Narcotics Bureau Southern Region
said that in 1971â 72 students in Australian universities were reported to have engaged in the illicit production of LSD. Since 1972 LSD had
diminished in pop u l a r i t y and most batches now seized were of overseas
origin. He explained that in all detected cases of illicit LSD (and,
incidentally, heroin) manufacture the manufacturer had a background of chemistry or science. Equipment and chemicals needed could be obtained through universities or colleges or, with rather more difficulty, from commercial suppliers (OT 2323). A witness in Victoria told the
Commission that LSD was manufactured at one time in the hills near
Melbourne by persons who obtained their raw materials from chemists and the equipment from a university. They produced approximately 1000
tablets a mo n t h and sold them through a dealer. A Victorian Police
officer with forensic science experience described the events
surrounding the discovery of an illicit laboratory in Melbourne in 1972 where a man was accused of making LSD and possibly other illegal
sub s t a n c e s .
Inspector. D. T. Ayres of the Western Australian Police said that
about nine years previously a university student had be e n detected
making LSD for experimental purposes but since then there had been
nothing to suggest that any drug other than cannabis was illegally
produced in that State (0T 5 1 8 X ) .
A185
In Q u e e n s l a n d , Detective Senior Sergeant T. N. Ferguson, Off i c e r - i n  Charge of the Drug S q u a d , told the Commission that there had been no
proven cases of LSD production in Queensland (OT 2044). In Ne w South
Wales a representative of the A u s tralian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association said he was inclined to believe that LSD was being made in
the western suburbs of Sydney but he could not provide any e v i d e n c e .
H allucinogenic Mushrooms
A Queensland school teacher told the Commission that because LSD was difficult to obtain and was e x p e n s i v e , people were picking
hallucinogenic m u s h r o o m s . These could be collected easily around
Samford, for e x a m p l e . An informed witness agreed that psilocybin-
p r oducing fungi were growing in and around Brisbane and mentioned
S a m f o r d , Ferny G r o v e , P i n k e n b a , D a y b o r o , and Beenleigh. A senior
Queensland Police officer said that gold-top mushrooms (Psilocybe
cubensis) were plentiful in the Gold Coast a r e a , but there was no
evidence to suggest that they were grown commercially. He said this
prohibited plant thrived in the Currumbin and Tallebudgera Valley areas in the wet season and was harvested by drug users.
Captain B . G. M u n d y , Commanding Officer of the Salvation Army in
Darwin, gave details about the availability of m u shroom hallucinogens in the Northern Territory. He said that gold-top and blue meanie mushrooms grew freely in the tropical climate in animal manure and in manured
g a r d e n s . He referred to an incident where a resident of the Red Shield
Hostel in Darwin, who was accused of housebreaking, said he had picked
blue meanies in the hostel garden and boiled them to make a drink. As a
result he was found by the court not responsible for his actions.
Captain Mundy explained that the garden had shortly before this incident been treated with fowl manure (OT 5909).
Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmanian Police said that
hallucinogenic fungi were prevalent in Tasmania and p s i locybin and
p s ilocin had been found in nine species. Each year abuse of these
toadstools grew more f r e q u e n t . He emphasised that their occurrence was State-wide (OT 1080).
Datura (Thornapple, Jimson Weed)
Plants of the genus Datura (Solanaceae) produce a number of
alkaloids, notably atropine, hyoscine and h y o s c y a m i n e , that can cause hallucinations. A witness in South Australia said that Datura was
causing considerable trouble in Adelaide and was becoming a social
p r o b l e m . People were preparing an infusion from Datura plants grown for ornamental purposes. Such infusions could cause serious disorientation.
In Victoria an informed witness told the Commission that Datura was
grown in the Loddon/Campaspe area and was being used experimentally by
14--25 year olds. A social worker in Queensland said there was some
experimentation with Datura and other substances in some Queensland
p r i s o n s . Several prisoners were known to have used extracts of Datura
by injection, drinking and smoking. The plant grew as a weed along
river banks near Wacol Prison. The prison authorities were endeavouring
A186
to eradicate the plant. This witness added that some prisoners were
smoking the skin of cane toads which contains the hallucinogenic
substance bufotenine.
Phencyclidine (PCP)
A senior United States law enforcement officer said the illicit
manufacturing and distribution of PCP was causing increasing concern in some parts of the United States. He added that manufacturing and use of
PCP in N e w York had grown to epidemic proportions. This substance can
cause severe mental disorientation and convulsions and is considered
highly dangerous. Its preparation also involves serious risks as ether, a highly flammable substance, and sodium cyanide, which is extremely
toxic, are used in the p r o c e s s .
No evidence was presented to the Commission that PCP is produced in
Australia or used here to any significant extent.
CANNABIS
World Sources
Indian h e m p , C a n n a b i s , probably originated in western Asia but
spread to the Middle East and Eastern E u r o p e , the Mediterranean and
North A f r i c a , and right across central Asia to the Indian subcontinent
and to China. It is now established also in parts of North, Central and
South A m e r i c a , southern Africa, and more recently in Australia.
Cannabis is an annual herbaceous plant growing to an average height
of some 7 feet but up to 10â 12 feet in favourable circumstances. There
are separate male and female plants. Although there may be several
varieties of Indian hemp it is thought that they all belong to a single
species, Cannabis sativa L.
Cannabis has be e n cultivated as an agricultural crop in parts of
Europe and the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and even in
tropical areas in South-East Asia (Thailand, I n d o n e s i a , etc.). The
plant has a number of valuable, and at one time important, uses: fibres
for cordage were obtained from the stems, oil used in paint
manufacturing was extracted from the s e e d s , and the residues were used
as animal fodder. The leaves and flowering tops, especially of female'
plants, produce a resin rich in a group of chemical substances that, if
taken into the body, produce a form of intoxication and, in higher
dosages, hallucinations. The most important psychoactive ingredient is tetrahydrocannabinol (T H C ) . The plant and its resin have been employed medicinally and in ritual and religious practices throughout recorded history.
Basically, three types of cannabis preparations are employed for
recreational u s e . These differ greatly in their levels of potency.
First there is m a r i h u a n a , the dried leaves and flowering tops, often
A187
including small twigs. Imported preparations made almost exclusively
from the flowering t o p s , secured to short lengths of cane and known as
'Thai* or 'B u d d h a ' sticks, are very potent and mu c h favoured by users in
Australia, where some attempts have b e e n made to p roduce similar
p r e p a r a t i o n s . Second, there is hashish, or the concentrated resin from
cannabis flowers. This is several times more potent than the dried
leaves. It is b elieved that no significant attempts have been made to
produce hashish in Australia. Third, liquid cannabis, cannabis oil, or
hashish oil w h i c h is obtained by repeated extraction of the resin
(hashish) and is very rich in the psychoactive s u b s t a n c e s . It is not
known to be pr o d u c e d in Australia. Being so c o n c e n t r a t e d , this is a
convenient form for illegal importation in or on the body. There is no
evidence that THC is produced except in controlled scientific studies.
Mr M. A. Besley, Secretary of the Department of Business and
Consumer Affairs, told the Commission that cannabis grew readily in many parts of the world and was cultivated in significant amounts for illegal exportation in Thailand, Indonesia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Turkey, North and South Africa, the West Indies and Mexico.
West Indian and M exican cannabis went ma i n l y to the American market but
cannabis products from all the countries mentioned above had worldwide distribution, especially in the developed countries (OT 87). Detective Inspector G. D. Baker of the Victorian Police Drug Bureau confirmed the
widespread sources of cannabis but said it was practicable to define a
p a r t icular area in the world as the major source for Australian
consumption. Seizures had been made of marihuana and h ashish coming
from Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia and South Africa. Coupled with the increasing local production it could be seen that there would rarely be a shortage of cannabis in Australia (OT 2769A).
However, Commissioner J. M. Davis of the Commonwealth Police thought
that the main sources of cannabis for Australia were Thailand, Indonesia and Lebanon (OT 448).
It was said that the most significant form of cannabis imported into
Australia at present was Thai (Buddha) sticks from Thailand, reported to be about as potent as hashish from Lebanon and Turkey (OT 86). Mr J. A.
Travers, Chief Investigator in the Narcotics Bureau, Western Region,
referred to the supply of cannabis products in Western Australia. The
source of Buddha sticks was Thailand, of cannabis leaf S u m a t r a , and of
hashish Afghanistan, Turkey and Lebanon (OT 638). Mr H. Bates,
Commissioner of the Narcotics Bureau, said that South Africa was no
longer a significant source of cannabis for Australia (OT 333). Mr
Besley explained that hashish resin is more easily p r oduced when
cannabis is grown in plantations than among other c r o p s . Cannabis
cultivation in South Africa, though ve r y extensive, occurs on small
holdings in isolated patches. T h e r e f o r e , South African exports of
cannabis consist mai n l y of the leaf form (OT 87).
Commander D . J. Mitchell of the Narcotics B u r e a u , Southern Region,
showed the Commission that cannabis resin ranged in colour from
green/gold to very dark b r o w n . Lebanese hashish is green/gold and that
from India dark brown (OT 2335).
A188
Dr D. de Souza, First Assistant D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l , Therapeutics
Division, of the Commonwealth Department of Health, provided a situation report based on the most recent session of the UN Commission on Narcotic
Drugs in February 1979. Cannabis continued to be the leading drug of
abuse in most countries. It was traditionally consumed b y people of
different ages in Africa, the Near and Middle East, Asia and the Far
East b u t abuse of this drug, sometimes in combination wi t h other
substances such as tobacco, had spread in recent years among young
people, principally those living in urban areas in m ost countries of the world. Illicit cultivation of cannabis had expanded in some countries
to meet increased international demand for it. It was estimated that
hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cannabis were produced annually and
tens of millions of people were using it. There appeared to be a rising
demand for cannabis and there was evidence of growing availability of
liquid cannabis on the illicit market (OT 21027).
Production of Cannabis in Australia
Cannabis cultivation has been detected in recent years in all
Australian States and Territories. Climatic conditions are less
suitable in Tasmania and the Northern Territory than elsewhere but plots have been found there and also in the A.C.T., in backyards, and isolated
rural areas. Inspector D. H. Haswell of the Commonwealth Police
referred to statistics which had been maintained since 1974 and said
that two crops were detected in 1974, four in 1975, eight in 1976 and
20 in 1977 (OT 173). The two crops in 1974 were in N e w South Wales and
they yielded 16 500 plants; the four in 1975 were in New South Wales (1)
and Queensland (3), totalling 4340 plants and 181 kg of cannabis; the
eight crops in 1976 were in Queensland (6) and South Australia (2),
yielding 23 288 plants weighing 1370 kg; and in 1977 four States were
involved: New South Wales (14), Victoria (4), Queensland (1) and Western Australia (1), the total number of plants was 28 485, weighing 3023 kg.
Acreages were 33 in 1975, 7.25 in 1976 and 547 in 1977 (Open Exhibit
41).
Mr A. W. Parsons, Director of the Cannabis Research Foundation, said some 2 million Australians had been catered for and the market supplied
400 000 regular users (OT 2466).
The Commission was told that local producers had attempted to
âcounterfeit' particular forms of imported cannabis, the main objective being to obtain a higher price for an inferior product. In 1973 in New
South Wales a producer was preparing compressed cannabis leaf of local
origin and stamping it with a device suggesting that it was a product of
Mexico. In the same investigation another person was found to be
compressing locally-grown cannabis to make it look like a form imported from Thailand. (OT 71--72). Commander Mitchell described cases of
'forgery' of Buddha or Thai sticks. Local cannabis was being made to
resemble the imported article by binding the flowering tops of the
female plant on to thin bamboo sticks to take advantage of the higher
price paid for imported cannabis (0T 2333). A senior Narcotics Bureau
agent in South Australia also gave similar evidence, and in Queensland a police officer, Constable M. McKay, spoke of a new form of cannabis he
had recently seen. This was the 'cannabis brick', consisting of
A189
compressed cannabis leaf and cut into 'deals' like a tobacco plug (OT
2 0 1 1 4 â 15) .
In Q u e ensland the Commission sought information on the biology of
cannabis. M r S. L. Everist, for m e r D i r e c t o r of the Botany Branch of the
Queensland D e p a r t m e n t of Pr i m a r y Industries, said there was only one
authentic record of a n a turally o c c u r r i n g stand of c a n n a b i s , that was in
the Singleton area of New So u t h Wales, and he understood it had been
e r a d i c a t e d . Therefore all cannabis g r o w i n g in A u stralia could be
assumed to be deliberately cultivated. Mr Everist described the
conditions required for successful cultivation. He said plentiful
supply of good water was e s sential in the early stages but the plants
became more resistant as they grew older (OT 2 2 2 2 â 23).
The Commission he a r d evi d e n c e that attempts had been made to grow
small varieties of cannabis indoors under artificial lighting. Dr R. W.
Johnson, present D i r e c t o r of the Botany Branch of the Queensland
Department of P rimary Industries, said that he thought use of the term
'B o n s a i ' for small varieties suitable for growing indoors was
inappropriate as cannabis was an a n n u a l . He was 'very d u b i o u s ' about
the pos s i b i l i t y of growing cannabis indoors under artificial
illumination bu t later agreed that this mi g h t be feasible, though
p r obably expensive (OT 5218). An o t h e r expert opinion on this point
indicated that for 10 square metres of cannabis the costs would be
around $300, m o s t l y for power. This area could p roduce perhaps 60
ounces of dried cannabis worth, say, $40 an o u n c e , returning $2400 over
four months for an o u t l a y of $300. Smaller areas would be considerably
less p r o f i t a b l e . However, this was a theoretical exercise only.
The Commission received evi d e n c e of ext e n s i v e cannabis cultivation in Q u e e n s l a n d . A p o l i c e o f f i c e r said that cannabis was grown
practically everywhere within the State but e s p ecially in the north and
far north. Large cultivations had be e n found at Mareeba, Boonmoo and
A therton and others w e r e strongly s u spected in the Mt Molloy and Mt
M ulligan and D i m b u l a h areas. Sm a l l e r pla n t a t i o n s were believed to exist in hippie colonies in the W a t s o n v i l l e â S i l v e r Valley areas in the
Her b e r t o n and Ravenshoe police divisions. T h e r e were unsubstantiated
reports of cannabis b e i n g grown o n the coastal strip from Landsborough
to Pomona and in secluded properties at P o m o n a , Maleny, Kin Kin and
Wappa Falls. He added that cannabis was g r o w n in the Gold Coast area
but only in b a ckyard plots. There was no evidence of large-scale
cultivation there. A n o t h e r i n formed wi t n e s s said that cannabis was
being grown in private residences in Brisbane b u t he bel i e v e d that North
Queensland was the main growing area. Cash crop plantations were run by
three or four partners in the rain forests of N o r t h Q u e ensland and the
crops were harvested and sent to Bri s b a n e and Sy d n e y in pri v a t e vehicles
or by road transport. A Queensland police officer referred to a
cannabis plantation of several h undred plants gr o w n on Crown land in the
Redlands area ne a r B r i s b a n e . It was on a 160 acre pig farm.
In c o n s idering the situation in Ne w So u t h Wales the Commission
relied on the detailed inquiries pu r s u e d by the New So u t h Wales Royal
C o m mission into Dr u g Trafficking. T h e Ne w South Wales Royal Commission,
A190
in its report of October 1979, w h i c h was incorporated as evidence to
the Commission as Open E xhibit 687, stated:
Wi t h i n N e w South Wales there are clear signs of careful
organisation, planning, continuity of management and a structure
of o rderly marketing.
(Open Exhibit 687, p 1934)
In particular, the N e w South Wales Royal Commission considered that by the early 1970s, two groups of commercial growers had begun to emerge
and that both groups w e r e still operating in 1979. One of these groups
was centred around a number of families of Lebanese origin and the
second was composed principally of people who w e r e either born in
Calabria, a province of southern Italy, or w e r e of Calabrian extraction.
The N e w South Wales Royal Commission reported that the first of
these two groups was involved in cultivations at Thirlmere (near C a m d e n ) , Towrang (near G o u l b u r n ) , and Mudgee. The report summarised the
involvement of the second group in the following terms:
The activities w e r e located primarily at and around Griffith
and to a lesser extent in the Liverpool area of Sydney,
although there is every reason to believe that, with the
passage of time, the n e t w o r k extended into areas of the
Commonwealth well beyond the borders of Ne w South Wales.
(Open Exhibit 687, p 98)
Other evidence presented to the A u s tralian Royal Commission discussed the various cannabis plantations discovered in Ne w South Wales between 1974 and 1977. In 1974 two plantations w e r e f o u n d . Both plantations
were in the G riffith area, one consisting of 2 hectares (almost 15 000
plants) and the other 1.2 hectares (almost 1500 plants). In N ovember
1975 a p l a n tation of 12.7 hectares wa s discovered at C o l e a m b a l l y , in the Riverina. It contained 350 000 plants and w a s wo r t h about $20 million.
In January 1977 a 4-hectare crop was found at Taree worth $3 million.
This comprised 15 000 plants and 200 1-kg bags of seed. In March 1977
cannabis growing on 10 hectares and wo r t h $5 m illion w as detected at
Euston, on the Mu r r a y River.
Other detections in 1977 w e r e at: Ni m b i n (132 p l a n t s ) , Wilson's
Creek (500 plants and a large quantity of cannabis in drying sheds wo r t h
$1 mi l l i o n in total), Terragon (1 hectare) and N e v ergreen (220 000
plants on 0.4 h e c t a r e ) , all on the North Coast; Coolah (380 plants);
Bathurst (1200 plants w o r t h $1 million); Kincumber (220 plants) near
Gosford; Fairfield (2 tonnes wo r t h $2 million) and Edensor Park
(36.29 kg) ne a r Liverpool; Theresa Park (200 plants) near Camden;
Rob e r t s o n (550 plants) ne a r Moss Vale; Roto (300 plants) on the Western
Plains, and Goonoo Forest (1.2 hectares of cannabis worth $1 m i l l i o n ) .
A Queensland Police Officer told the Commission that cannabis was cultivated on a large scale at Murwillumbah, Mullumbimby and Nimbin just across the NSW border from Coolangatta, and the Town Clerk of Orange
A191
submitted that large areas of cannabis we r e cultivated around Orange.
Other w i t nesses spoke of cannabis pro d u c t i o n in the Tam w o r t h â Quirindi, Singleton, Bu s t o n and Griffith areas.
In V i c t o r i a , Inspector G. D. Baker of the Victoria Police Drug
Bureau said that cannabis grew well in most parts of the State and
cultivation had been detected in diverse localities. Large plantations were usually located in remote forest areas of the State. In December
1977 alone 20 000 plants were seized throughout the State; the smallest
seizure was one p l a n t , the biggest 17 000 p l a n t s . The plantations
referred to were at M e l b o u r n e , Healesville, E m e r a l d , M o r w e l l , McAllister River, Mt Beauty, W a n g a r a t t a , Mildura, Rainbow, L o m e and Swan Hill.
The biggest seizure (17 000 plants) came from three plots at Mount
Toole-Be-Wong near Healesville, about 60 miles east of Melbourne (0T
27 5 1 â 56).
Several witnesses spoke about cannabis growing in the hills near
Melbourne, from L i lydale and Fern Tree Gully to Gembrook and Warburton, in backyards and also in the b u s h , especially in communes near the towns
of Sassafras, Belgrave, U p w e y , Boronia and Emerald. A CSIRO technical
assistant gave details about his personal experience of growing cannabis for his own use and said he had obtained flowering tops of female plants
that were par t i c u l a r l y rich in THC. A plant breeder from a research
farm in Victoria also admitted he had grown cannabis for his own use and
said he had experimented with varieties and planting times. He had
found the best time to plant was early N o vember and he had tried to find
a variety that flowered at the hottest time of year; that way, he
considered the highest THC content was obtained.
A Victoria Police Officer from Mildura said that in August 1977 a
Turkish immigrant was discovered tending 500--600 cannabis plants on two separate properties at Kiamil near Onyen. In November 1978, 70 cannabis plants were seized at M i l d u r a , 2000 and 18 000 at K o o r l o n g , 5000--6000
at Red Cliffs, 10 200 at Irymple and 9000 at Cabarita. The witness said
that members of the Turkish community were implicated throughout the
Sunraysia District, and on a fairly large scale. It appeared to be
awell-controlled and co-ordinated group e f f o r t . A retired Victoria
Police Officer spoke about the involvement of Greeks and said that
Italians also were involved in cannabis cultivation, especially around Mildura and in the Portland a r e a .
Statements about large-scale cultivation of cannabis in the Mildura area were supported by a police officer serving in the Mildura C I B . He
said that various ethnic communities, but especially the Italian and
Turkish, were involved in the organised production of cannabis.
In South Australia, in May 1979, a senior officer of the South
Australian Police D e p artment provided details of offences relating to cultivation of cannabis in the State over the period 1976 â 78. In 1976
six plantations were detected in Salisbury North, G l a n d o r e , Millicent, Whyalla, Loxton and Norwood (Adelaide). The two largest were at
Salisbury North (1285 plants) and Loxton (10 000 plants). In 1977 five
A192
plantations were discovered at Rosewater, Malvern, Collinswood, W i n k i e , and near B a r m e r a . The largest seizure was at Winkie (4300 p l a n t s ) . In
1978 19 p l a n t a t i o n s , mostly of large size, were located: 65 000 plants
near Tintinara, 18 821 plants at Virginia, 19 735 and 10 000 plants at
Waterloo C o r n e r , and 29 591 at Dalkeith. 11 other plantations contained several thousand plants and only three fewer than 1000.
The witness said that the large discoveries during the previous 12
months had resulted from a shortage of cannabis on the street market. A
probable indication of the effects of police action on commercial crops was the sudden increase in numbers of small or backyard crops detected
in surburban homes. The two main areas where major cultivations were
discovered were the Virginia--Two Wells market garden district north of Adelaide and the irrigated areas in the Murray Valley. Analyses of 13
samples of dried leaf cannabis seized in South Australia showed the
proportion of resin ranged from 0.8 per cent to 9.5 per cent, and the
amount of THC in the resin from 9.4 per cent to 64 per cent. The
proportion of THC in the plant material varied from 0.2 per cent to 3.4
per cent.
In Tasmania the climate and soils are not particularly suitable for
cannabis cultivation but Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmanian Police said that the north-western part of Tasmania had produced significant
q u a n t i t i e s . Although most plantations appeared to be for personal use, there was evidence that some Tasmanian cannabis was sold on the local
illicit market. Inspector Cashion described the north-western area as lying between Deloraine and Queenstown.and said it was v e r y flat with
fertile soil. However, plantations had been discovered also in northern and southern parts of the State. He said the main offenders were people
coming from other States to settle on isolated properties. They were
using cannabis as a means of supplementing a social service benefit. It
was becoming increasingly popular for commune-type settlements to occupy isolated holdings, which were often abandoned dairy farms. He suggested that the relative cheapness of land in Tasmania made the State
attractive to commune dwellers from the mainland States and indicated
that there was an increasing tendency to use Crown land for growing
cannabis. He also said that fishermen were growing cannabis in
uninhabited parts of Tasmania and on coastal islands (OT 1 0 8 0--84).
Other witnesses said that Tasmania cannabis was of good quality.
Detections of cannabis plantations for 1976â 78 w e r e : 13 plantations (4 in Hobart) in 1976, 49 plantations (16 in Hobart) in 1977, and 64
plantations (17 in Hobart) in 1978.
In Western Australia Inspector D. T. Ayres of the Western Australian Police said there were instances of cannabis cultivation virtually all over the State. He thought most cannabis was grown by users for their
own use and added that the demand for cannabis in Western Australia was
far in excess of the supply available from local production. Places
mentioned by witnesses in connection with cannabis growing were the
Margaret River and Blackwood River area in the South-West and the Perth metropolitan ar e a---Claremont, Maida Vale and Sawyers Valley. Another witness said cannabis was being grown on an island near Onslow and on
A193
the Monte Bello I s l a n d s . Inspector Ayres said that in 1977--78 102
persons were charged w i t h cannabis cultivation offences. Most of the
cultivations we r e small but in January 1978 a large p l a n t a t i o n of just
over 2 hectares was located at Lake O' C o n n o r 380 km south-east of Perth.
In a l l , 10 000 plants and about 100 kg of dried leaf were seized. The
area was served b y a pipeline from a dam 2.5 km away and a 20 000 gallon
water tank set on a hill above the plantation. There were two sheds
with concrete floors, refrigerators, bedding and cooking facilities. It was estimated that the plantation would have cost over $5000 to
establish (OT 22380).
In the N o r t h e r n Territory d u r i n g , March 1978, Chief Inspector W. L.
Goedegebuure of the N orthern Territory Police Force said that until very recently cannabis cultivation appeared to be on a small scale with
complete lack of organisation. However, recent enquiries had indicated the p o s s ibility of l a r g e - s c a l e , organised cultivation in the Katharine and Wollogorang a r e a . There had been several seizures of the local
product, the two largest being 10 kg and 627 plants averaging 2 metres
high, and 50 kg and 800 small plants. Chief Inspector Goedegebuure
pointed out that climatic conditions in mu c h of the Nor t h e r n Territory
made cannabis cultivation somewhat difficult. Successful cultivators had invested considerable amounts of m o n e y . In particular, large
quantities of fertilizer were required to raise the fertility of the
soil. Three fairly large cultivations in recent years had be e n started
by persons coming from other States who selected the Nor t h e r n Territory because of its r e m o t e n e s s , the smaller risk of detection, and the low
penalties handed down if detected (OT 5666--70).
AMPHETAMINES
Mr N. R. Kelly, Executive Director of the A u s tralian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association, explained to the Commission that, with a
certain amount of expertise, amphetamines were relatively easy to
manufacture (OT 12628). A senior Narcotics Bureau officer said that
information received by the Bureau in late 1975 made it fairly clear
that an illicit amphetamine laboratory was operating in the Glebe area
of Sydney. E a r l y in 1976 a doctor was arrested and successfully
prosecuted for illegally making a m p h e t a m i n e . The product was of high
quality. Referring to this case, Mr M. A. Besley, Secretary of the
D e p artment of Business and Consumer Affairs, said the doctor was an
addict and that wh e n arrested he had 1.7 kg of amphetamine sulphate for
sale (OT 75).
A Narcotics Bureau witness told the Commission that, in F ebruary
1978, the Bureau obtained information about another illicit amphetamine laboratory. The offender proved to be a graduate chemist employed by a
chemical manufacturing company, but there was no connection be t w e e n his regular employment and his illegal activities.
A senior representative of the A u s tralian Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' A s s o ciation said illicit manufacturers of amphetamines obtained their basic material by synthesising it from other materials. Two New South Wales Health Commission pharmacists informed the
A194
Commission that people could manufacture amphetamine but that they did not get the precursor through a pharmacy. The precursor could be bought
readily from chemical suppliers. They believed that if the suppliers
were suspicious they would inform the Drug S q u a d , but there were many
legitimate uses for the precursor.
METHAQUALONE
Dr C. P. V. E v a n s , Deputy Director-General of the Commonwealth
Department of Health, explained to the Commission that methaqualone was originally marketed as a safe sedative- - h y p n o t i c , superior to the
barbiturates and other sleep-inducing medications. H o w e v e r ,
methaqualone, particularly in combination with diphenhydramine
(Mandrax), proved to be both toxic and dependence producing. Mandrax
was used by habitual and recreational drug u s e r s , often in conjunction
with other drugs such as alcohol. Methaqualone and the various
preparations containing methaqualone were included in the fourth
schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) R e g u l a t i o n s , and security requirements applied to the importation, movement to importers' premises and storage were as strict as those applying to narcotic d r u g s . He
added that methaqualone was imported into Australia by two main
importersâ Roussel Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd and Riker Laboratories
Australia Pty Ltd (OT 3 8 4 0 - - 4 3 ) . Dr M. C. Hall, Commonwealth Police
Principal Research O f f i c e r , said that, to his knowledge, Mandrax was
fully imported. As far as he was aware it was not legally manufactured
in Australia and he did not know of any illegal production to date (OT
4042).
GENERAL
Australia has the range of climate, type of country and adequate
water to produce the main 'v o l u m e ' drugs of abuse---namely, heroin,
c a n n a b i s , and cocaine. As the necessary technology, expertise, and
finance are readily available h e r e , there is a possibility for viable
illicit drug m a n u f a c t u r i n g , especially in view of an ever-increasing d e m a n d . Labour costs are not a constraining factor in this industry
since the 'mark up' is so great in relation to current labourers' wages. Alternatively, evidence of the intrusion of ethnic groups into this
trade suggests a source of low-cost labour available for a variety of
r e a s o n s , some of which are family ties, co-operative efforts to succeed, common aims and a desire to emigrate to this country legally or
illegally, supported by a willingness to pay a substantial price for
that privilege. The relative inaccessibility of some portions of this country, climatically suited to production of any one of the three
' volume' drugs, provides a basis for thinking that one day, in the
absence of strong enforcement, Australia could become very much self sufficient in d r u g s .
Opium poppies are grown in Burma and Thailand at heights of not less
than 3000 f e e t , in latitudes comparable to parts of Australia. At those latitudes similar growing conditions can be f o u n d . Evidence disclosed little or no illegal growing of p o p p i e s , but the potential exists to be
guarded against. Whilst there is a ready supply of narcotics from the
Golden Triangle countries the need for Australian production of heroin
A195
does not exist. For that reason and because of strong enforcement,
attempts at chemically manufacturing her o i n from codeine in Australia have been eliminated. Conditions for growing poppies in Mexico closely
resemble those in Australia.
The demand in Australia for Buddha sticks or Thai sticks, to use
terms not favourably viewed by Thais, has become ve r y great. This is
some indication of the superior quality of 'tops' produced in Thailand. However, there are indications that some cannabis grown in North
Queensland and other parts of Australia could well produce a comparable THC content, though the evidence in relation to this analysis has not
been precise. Again, there is ample land and appropriate growing
conditions in parts of Australia to p rovide a source of supply of
cannabis which, assisted b y the technology and expertise available in
this country, could be as potent as any now imported.
Virtually the entire world supply of coca is grown in South America
at considerable heights, but again in latitudes comparable to those in
parts of Australia. The growing of the coca plant in Australia to
produce a source of illegal cocaine is a remote and highly speculative
possibility, but one wh i c h must not be ignored.
Trends in drug supply and drug-taking throughout the world are not
static. It is alleged, for instance, that the strong enforcement action by the U.S. Drug E n f o rcement Administ r a t i o n caused the supply of So u t h  East Asian heroin to be diverted from the West Coast of America to
Australia, among other countries. It is further alleged that
suppression of the alleged 'French Connection' resulted in the
development of the heroin trade in M exico and its dramatic entry into
the American market.
The message conveyed by these considerations is that strong
enforcement is n e cessary throughout Australia to prevent its being
further exploited as a drug producing country. Recent events have
indicated that, while cannabis can be grown throughout the length and
breadth of the land, strong enforcement measures can quickly dry up the
source. This pressure must be maintained.
A196
Chapter 2 Methods of Importation of Illegal Drugs
If evidence presented to this Commission was unanimous on any single
aspect of drugs it was that concerning the ingenuity and guile of drug
smugglers. Without exception knowledgable witnesses agreed with the
sentiments expressed by Mr D. J. Mitchell, Southern Region Commander of the Narcotics Bur e a u , when he told the Commission:
Methods used in the illegal importation of drugs are restricted only by the imagination of the importer.
(OT 2331)
Mr Mitchell explained that methods of importation fell into five broad
categories:
* by people entering Australia as airline or ship passengers, air crew
or ship's crews and acting either on their own behalf or as couriers
for others or perhaps both;
* through the postal system;
* in sea or air cargo arriving either as a private or commercial
shipment;
* by 'drops' from ships or planes;
* by landings from small boats or aircraft.
On the opening day of Commission hearings, Mr M. A. Besley,
Secretary of the Department of Business and Consumer A f f a i r s , gave a
long list of methods used in recent years by smugglers, most of which
are illustrated in the examples quoted below. He also commented on the
probable results of the development of these techniques in these w o r d s :
Against the traditional importation of illicit drugs by Asian crew of merchant vessels plying between South-East Asia and
Australia, the constant development of more sophisticated
techniques indicates the probability of a higher incidence of undetected importations.
(OT 41)
He also made the point that:
... methods of importation always tend to be designed to
exploit the more vulnerable areas of the Department's (Customs) control system.
. (OT 50)
Evidence indicated that while it was probable that all types of
methods of smuggling were used to breach the Customs 'screen' in every
State, some methods were used more often in some States than in others,
either because of the presence of large international airports or
seaports or ---as dealt with in detail in other Parts of this Report ---
A197
b ecause some States and Territories have long stretches of remote
c o a s t l i n e .
Mr R. J. Phillips, Eastern Region Commander of the Narcotics Bureau, said he believed it was not possible to pinpoint detailed routes of
illegal drug entry into Australia because of the flexibility of
smugglers (OT 9775). But he went on to say that the most used route for
smugglers using b o d y or baggage concealment was by airliner from cities such as Bangkok, Kuala L u m p u r , Hong Kong or Singapore to Sydney. He
also pointed out that it was p ossible for smugglers to manipulate their
airline itineraries so as to reach Sydney and other Australian
destinations from the most unlikely ports of call.
M r Besley dr e w the Commission's attention to apparent increases in
smuggling activity in remote places in the following words:
Intelligence activity, together with a number of detections,
indicates that large illicit drug importations have been made
using small craft at remote areas on the west and north-west
coast, b y sea drops from merchant vessels, and by use of light
aircraft landing from overseas at remote, deserted a i r s t r i p s---often u n c h a r t e d---in the far north of Australia.
(OT 47)
These methods of importation are discussed in detail in Part VIII of the
Report, 'Coastal S u r v e i l l a n c e '.
FIN A N C I N G OF ILLEGAL DRUG IMPORTATIONS
Evidence from several sources pointed to changes in methods and
scale of financing illegal drug importations in recent y e a r s . A senior
Narcotics Bureau officer said in confidential session that, while at one time financing ma i n l y meant a group of people contributing money so one
of the group could go overseas to buy drugs for the group's own u s e ,
p r e s ent-day importations constituted a profitable business venture
offering returns unmatched in the legitimate business w o r l d :
Seizures of large sums of cash have been made from persons
whose status in the community suggests money in excess of
possible wages in a full lifespan.
(CT)
Mr J. M. Davis, Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police, gave
evidence that in 1970--71 large-scale organised crime groups had used
counterfeit Australian $10 notes to buy heroin in Malaysia (OT 541).
When the Commission explored in confidential session with a recently convicted drug s m u g g l e r , ways in which a large 'deal' could be arranged
in South-East Asia, the smuggler said his observations of 'the cannabis business' indicated smuggling schemes originated with two or three
people investing some money in one operation, then re-investing the
profits from this operation to finance increasingly bigger operations.
A198
The smuggler said that while he did not know of any finance from SouthÂ
East Asian sources coming into Australia to finance Australian-
originated s c h e m e s , he personally would have no difficulty raising
large sums in Singapore where he was well known and where his contacts
included a respected b a n k e r .
CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
A senior Narcotics Bureau officer explained in confidential evidence in one of the Commission's earliest hearings that one of the techniques
used b y drug importers was the recruitment of persons who work in
1 strategic areas'. He said this had included a limited number of
Customs o f f i c e r s , some of whom had been arrested and convicted. Other
evidence indicated such corruption attempts were not limited to Customs officers. In mid-1979 the Commission heard evidence concerning
investigations of an alleged conspiracy involving two airline cargo
clerks in different cities helping a syndicate in its attempt to smuggle cannabis resin and cannabis oil into the country. Evidence was also
received of a Canberra mailman who intercepted packages of toys
containing heroin sent through the mail from Malaysia and delivered them to a contact (OT 230).
PERSONAL IMPORTATION
Use of Couriers
Evidence concerning drug smuggling b y personal importation clearly showed drug smugglers often go to considerable trouble to select
couriers likely to have a veneer of respectability. Senator the Hon. D .
L. C h i p p , a former Minister for Customs, said there had been a shift
from 'the trendy, long-haired, bearded young person bringing a guitar in to the m i d d l e - a g e d , respectable or even elderly ladies probably carrying Billy Graham envelopes under their arms' (OT 9319).
The submission by the South Australian Police Department, originally to the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of
Drugs and incorporated into the evidence of this Commission, gave this
description of the type of person used by drug traffickers:
... couriers are frequently selected because they have not come
under police suspicion. They are usually attracted to the
trade because of the pecuniary rewards offered or the chance of travel overseas, although loyalty to the principals through
personal liaison, as in the case of 'girlfriends' or other
personal relationships, is often a factor.
(OT 8316â 17)
Journalist and television p r o d u c e r , Mr P. F . B u r g e s s , who said that informed sources in Thailand in 1977 had believed Australia was the
substitute market for the South-East Asian drug trade lost after the
V ietnam war, gave profiles of two types of couriers being recruited
among Australians in South-East Asia, particularly B a n g k o k . One type
was the person travelling on package tours to such destinations as
A199
Chiang Mai near the Thailand opium-growing area or to Bangkok with the
cost of the tour being part of the courier's price. This arrangement
took advantage of the safety of travelling with a group. Other
couriers, travelling singly or in pairs, obtained lodgings in cheap
hotels where they could make connections with drug traffickers (OT
1 1 9 0 0 - - 0 2 ) .
A witness involved in an abortive heroin smuggling attempt in mid-
1976 described in confidential evidence how he and his girlfriend had
be e n invited to have an all-expenses paid holiday in Penang with an
additional payment of one oz. (28.3 grams) each of heroin to smuggle
into Australia a package containing between 10 oz. and 20 o z . of heroin.
They were instructed to fly via Auckland and Singapore and then return
by the same route to Melbourne. They had collected the heroin in Penang
but had been apprehended by New Zealand Customs on arrival at Auckland
Airport on the return journey. 'It was just a fluke they caught us' the
witness said.
A Bureau of Customs submission received in confidential session gave details of investigations from 1975 to 1977 of a Sydney-based syndicate of nine principals, which had established a courier operation:
Evidence shows that couriers were recruited in Australia and
South-East Asia. They were offered the sum of $3000--$4000 per
trip, together with air fares, hotel accommodation and all
expenses paid. Prior to departure they were briefed on Customs
procedures, and were instructed that, if arrested in Australia, to say nothing as the syndicate would provide legal assistance, bail monies and/or sureties. Once on bail, the courier could
either choose to face the charges and be paid $10 000 or accept
money, air tickets and a false Australian passport to abscond
the country. Female couriers were briefed...in the event of
arrest, to tell the authorities a prepared fictitious cover
story which was self-serving in nature and indicated that they
had unknowingly been duped into carrying suitcases of drugs.
Couriers commenced at Bangkok, then proceeded with the
suitcases of cannabis by air to Singapore. From Singapore, the couriers flew to either Sydney, Melbourne or Perth (and then on
to Sydney). Another modus o p e r a n d ! , was for the couriers to
sail by passenger liner to Fremantle, and then fly on to
Sydney. In known cases, the suitcases were then delivered to
an empty flat and left there to be collected. Another ruse was
for the courier to transit Sydney to New Zealand and then
transit back to Australia. Experienced couriers were also used to illegally export Australian currency on their persons to
Hong Kong, where it was exchanged and then taken to Thailand
as payment for drugs. In one incident, given in evidence, the
sum was $28 000 cash.
It is believed that in 1975, about forty individual couriered
importations were made into Australia by this group, each
A200
courier carrying either two or three suitcases of c a n n a b i s . A
reliable estimate of the total amount of drugs would be between 800--1200 kg. Customs examination resulted in the
arrest/seizure of 6 couriers in Australia and one in New
Zealand and the seizure of about 110 kg. of cannabis.
Independent action by the Narcotics Bureau resulted in the
seizure of a small quantity of the d r u g , and a total of $96 000
in cash consisting of couriers fees and payment for previous
s h i p m e n t s . About twenty couriers have been fully identified
and several have given e v i d e n c e , under indemnity, for the Crown in these proceedings.
(Confidential Exhibit)
Other confidential evidence gave details of another courier scheme apparently centred in Canberra in 1975 and 1976 in which girls between
18 and 23 years of age with no criminal records were recruited to take
holidays in Singapore which included a visit by train to Bangkok to pick
up heroin which was concealed either inside or on their bodies on return
to Sydney. Payment for the holiday was believed to be $1500 before
departure and an additional amount of between $10 000 and $15 000 on
delivery, depending on quantity. Six such courier runs were believed to have taken place.
Mr H. B a t e s , Commissioner of the Narcotics Bureau, said in evidence that one courier had been known to carry as much as 2 kg of heroin with
a street value in Australia of $1 million.
Two incidents which occurred in Perth in early 1978 and which were
quoted in confidential evidence by Narcotics Bureau witnesses
illustrated varying techniques used by traffickers and their c o u r i e r s . In the first instance a woman detained at Perth Airport was found to
have 893.2 grams of No. 3 heroin in her brassiere. A man whom Narcotics
Bureau officers described as her 'controller' and who was travelling on the same flight was also arrested. The Narcotics Bureau evidence
indicated that another two or three couriers could have been on the
plane. In the second incident two Perth businessmen were convicted of
smuggling offences after a young woman employed to take clothing to
South-East Asia to 'test the m a r k e t 1 there had become suspicious of the
suitcase she was carrying on her return to Australia and had reported
her suspicions to Customs officers at Perth Airport. The bag contained
344 grams of No. 3 heroin hidden under a l i n i n g , and evidence was given
that in this instance and on at least two other occasions suitcases
taken from Australia by young women had been substituted overseas.
In confidential session a former drug trafficker gave the Commission examples of techniques used by couriers to reduce the chances of
detection. One technique was to have two people travelling on the same
plane but with no contact with one another. Someone would telephone an
anonymous 'tip' to Customs concerning one of the people and while
Customs officers were concentrating on this person the o t h e r , who was
carrying the d r u g s , would pass through u n d e t e c t e d . Another technique
was to use a child carrying a doll in which drugs were c o n c e a l e d . The
child would go into an hysterical tantrum if anyone attempted to take
the doll.
A201
The Commission noted a considerable body of evidence that the use of
false passports can often be part of the arrangements made between
couriers and their principals. Confidential evidence of a Commonwealth Police officer quoted one instance of a man arrested with 75 passports
in his possession. Another witness who admitted in confidential session to having used and trafficked in heroin said that 'at least 4 0 â people
whom he knew who had been overseas to get heroin had learned 'the right
w a y 1 to do so through connections in the drug scene. 'And by far the
best way is to try it with a forged passport and to get a passport in
someone e l s e 's name', he added.
Concealment Inside the Body
Evidence received by the Commission strongly suggests concealment of drugs within the bo d y by smugglers is fairly widespread and on the
increase (OT 22387--91) . Drugs concealed in this way are u sually placed
inside rubber contraceptives (condoms) or similar containers and
swallowed or inserted into the rectum or vagina. Drugs most commonly
found concealed in this way have been cannabis oil and hashish and
frequently heroin, but other drugs, such as cocaine, might also have
been concealed in this way.
Information circulated by the international police organisation
Interpol in May 1978 noted that the largest number of packages known to
have been swallowed was 55, containing a total of 2 kg of cannabis oil.
In Perth in June 1978 an Australian man admitted to State Police Drug
Squad detectives he had bought 168 g of heroin in Bangkok, packed them
into 50 individual contraceptives, swallowed them and passed them
naturally after returning to Western Australia by air.
Evidence detailed elsewhere in this Report shows that one of the
reasons for the use of internal body concealment by smugglers attempting to bring drugs into Australia is the difficulty in initiating body
s e a r c h e s , and p a r t i cularly internal or 'i n t r u s i o n ' body s e a r c h e s ,
because of what m a n y witnesses saw as the inadequacies of Section 196 of
the Customs Act, the legislation under which bo d y searches are carried
o u t .
On the other hand, evidence from Mr H. Bates, Commissioner of the
Narcotics B u r e a u , and other witnesses p ointed to the serious risks
involved in using such concealment methods. Packages of drugs swallowed can take up to 10 days to pass through the body but ma y cause intestinal
obstruction and require surgical removal. Also, drug poisoning can
occur if a package breaks. Mr Bates said persons were known to have
become extremely ill when attempting to smuggle hashish oil in this
manner into Australia and deaths from cocaine poisoning were not unknown o v e r s e a s .
In another incident in Perth, in January 1979, a New Zealand man
arrived at the airport and passed through the Customs with cannabis oil
concealed internally in 11 c o n d o m s , which he had swallowed. He later
passed several of the condoms naturally but subsequently suffered severe
A202
pains and had himself admitted to the Royal Perth Hospital, where the
remaining condoms were r e m o v e d . The total weight of the cannabis oil
was 167.3 g (OT 22400).
Evidence was given that smugglers using personal ingestion sometimes go to considerable trouble to avoid the risk of packages bursting. A
senior Narcotics Bureau officer told of a m a n who had been found in a
hotel room after a smuggling attempt in which the man had packaged 250 g
of cannabis oil and 6.5 g of prepared opium in 35 separate condoms and
then wrapped each condom in another six condoms. The m a n admitted
passing a total of 245 condoms. A Tasmanian witness in confidential
session described how a smuggler he had known had swallowed 61 g of
heroin wrapped in eight condoms and had then swallowed salt after his
arrival in Sydney, as an emetic to recover the condoms.
Interpol records show that the largest amount of drugs known to have been concealed in the rectum up to May 1978 was 1 kg of cannabis oil
wrapped in 23 condoms. In Australia a Commonwealth medical officer who
attended an examination of two female smugglers when 64 g of heroin were
detected noted that the smuggling attempt appeared to have been
'professional1 . The packages had been lodged so high in the anal
passage that insertion might well have required medical assistance, he said. He believed the smugglers consented to the examination because
they had believed the packages would not be found. The medical officer
said although similar quantities could be smuggled in the vaginal
cavity, such concealments were much more readily detectable.
Other incidents involving body cavity concealments reported in
evidence included:
- r a man detained in Perth who had concealed 25 cannabis 'Thai s t i c k s '
weighing a total of 43 g in his rectum;
* a woman detained at Brisbane Airport who had concealed 148.5 g of
heroin with a potential 'street v a l u e ' of $147 000 wrapped in a
condom 15 cm long and 5 cm in diameter;
* a woman detained at Melbourne Airport in May 1978 who had attempted
to conceal 69.9 g of heroin; *
* investigations by Narcotics Bureau officers indicating that a woman
had evaded detection attempts which had included a complete baggage search and a body search (excluding an internal or 'intrusion'
search) by concealing 60 g of heroin in her v a g i n a .
Concealment on the Body
Concealment of drugs either attached to the person or in clothing is also quite common, the Commission was told. Some Customs officers said
this method was particularly favoured by women. Techniques used include simple concealment in pockets, use of plastic bags strapped to the body
or stitched into clothing, and use of articles of clothing specifically made for smuggling ---sometimes in an amateurish fashion, but often in a
A203
highly skilled fashion. Evidence was given of an airline crew member
smuggling 3.5 kg of hashish in packets strapped to his body and legs.
Senior Inspector D. H. H a s w e l l , Officer-in-Charge of the
Commonwealth Police Australian Crime Intelligence Centre Drug Section, gave an example of the techniques used and payments involved for people
engaged in this sort of smuggling (Open Exhibit 32, p . 3 2 ) . A young
A u s tralian wo m a n detained at Sydney Airport in July 1976 was found to
have 930 g of almost pure heroin concealed in plastic bags held in place
on her stomach and buttocks by a stretch bandage and g i r d l e . The women
had been given the heroin in Bangkok by an Australian. She had been
promised $12 000 to bring the heroin into A u s t r a l i a .
Other examples quoted to the Commission indicating the variety of
methods used included:
* a smuggler detained while walking through Perth Airport with about
454 g of 90 pe r cent pure heroin in a shoulder bag;
* 19 g of heroin concealed in an artificial leg worn by a man at
Sydney Airport in July 1978;
* a woman in South Australia who had smuggled a small quantity of
heroin through Customs in 1973 in her h a i r .
Several examples were quoted of concealment in specially made or
adapted shoes, including one provided by Mr J. A. T r a v e r s , Narcotics
Bureau Chief Investigator, in evidence in Perth in May 1979 in which he
described the detention of a man found to have 252.7 g of cannabis resin
in his boots. Mr Travers said:
His feet had actually been glued to the inside of his boots to
stop them falling off. They were somewhat clownish, as you can imagine ---the boots were far too big for h i m .
(OT 22401)
Concealment in Personal Effects and Baggage
Methods used for concealment of drugs in the personal effects and
baggage of aircraft and ship passengers arriving either with the
passenger, as unaccompanied luggage, as cargo or through the postal
system provided many graphic examples of the ingenuity of smugglers.
Mr H. Bates in evidence said, the 'traditional1 false-bottomed
suitcase has been so refined in construction that detection is nearly
impossible without prior intelligence (OT 16717). Such suitcases, other evidence indicated, are a speciality of some Hong Kong merchants. One
authoritative witness said that in Bangkok and Singapore luggage-makers are making suitcases similar to a bag known as a Samsonite 3-suiter in
which each side contains a plastic bag adding only 2 mm to the thickness
of the suitcase but capable of containing up to 3.79 kg of h e r o i n .
A204
Mr M.A. B e s l e y , Secretary of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, made specific reference in the first day of the Commission
hearings to the use of sporting equipment to conceal d r u g s . Heroin and
other drugs have been found between the inner and outer casings of golf
bags, in surfboards where the normal 's t r i n g e r s ' inside the board had
been replaced by bags in such a way that the boards appear normal even
under x-ray, and in a q u a l u n g s , skis and in plastic tennis racquet cases.
The size of personal effects found to have been used to smuggle
drugs into Australia varies from vitamin capsules used to conceal
cannabis oil and Australian 50 cent coins prepared to conceal heroin to
a motor vehicle containing 1.9 tonnes of cannabis concealed in a false
floor.
The first submission by the Department of Business and Consumer
Affairs noted that concealment of cannabis oil (liquified hashish) is
known to have been particularly s u c c e s s f u l :
It is highly p o t e n t , has high unit value, low bulk for high
value, and is easily c o n c e a l e d . In some instances the liquid
has been injected under pressure into the cavities of moulded
plastic housings and containers of electronic and office
equipment like portable sound equipment and portable
t y p e w r i t e r s .
This approach capitalises on a natural reluctance of inspecting authorities to break open the permanent housings of such items. In 1974 towards 5 kilos of liquid hashish was detected.
Detections rose to 32 kilos in 1975 and to 45 kilos in 1976.
(OT 43 â 44)
A photographic register submitted by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and incorporated into Commission evidence as Open
E xhibit 2 and additional information from the Department incorporated as a Confidential Exhibit gave examples of heroin concealments in the rear of tape decks, in backgammon b o a r d s , in toys, in cigarette packets, in
pockets sewn into clothing such as petticoats and brassieres and
corsets, in aerosol cans and tins of baby powder, and in solution in
bottles of liquor which travellers had imported as part of their duty
free concession.
Other evidence given by a witness known as 'Mr Melbourne (1)'
referred to heroin being imported by soaking carpets in water in which
he r o i n had been dissolved. Seizures mentioned by Mr J . M. Davis,
Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police, included 22 batik wall
tapestries impregnated with 4 kg of opium and 205 g of heroin concealed
in the base of backgammon b o a r d s .
Seizures found in unaccompanied baggage at Sydney Airport by the
Sydney Drug Dog Detector Unit have included 7 kg of Buddha grass in a
chess set and 1 kg of cannabis in the soles and heels of two pairs of
A205
built-up s h o e s . Other finds in unaccompanied baggage at the same
airport include 7 kg of cannabis found in false compartments of luggage
and 2 kg of pow d e r e d hashish resin taped to the inside of the hems of
Indian dresses.
Other Sydney Airport detections of concealments in baggage with or
without false compartments include:
* cannabis consignments weighing 3.5 kg and 20 kg in false-bottomed
suitcases imported by Turkish nationals in February 1978;
* 9.9 kg of heroin in plastic bags in a suitcase in M a y 1978 (the
intending smuggler had attempted to switch suitcases with an
a c c o m p l i c e ) ;
* 3.5 kg of cannabis oil located by a detector dog in June 1978 in the
compartment of a canteen of cutlery.
Evidence from Customs officers quoted similar examples from other
airports and sea p o r t s , including 8.5 kg of cannabis in false-bottomed
suitcases at Melbourne Airport in August 1978 and 481 g of cannabis oil
in a chess board and ornamental ox horns at Hobart in January 1978.
IMPORTATION BY MAIL
Evidence from officers of the Bureau of Customs and the Australian
Postal Commission gave many examples of attempts to smuggle drugs into
Australia using ma n y of the methods of concealment listed above, via
Parcels Post or through the mails. As is discussed in other parts of
this R e p o r t , several witnesses pointed to what they saw as the
shortcomings of the legislative provisions of the Postal Services Act
1975, particularly in regard to first class mail.
A senior officer of the Australian Postal Commission said some broad indication of the amount of drugs being carried through the mails might
be obtained from the statistics of postal articles forfeited. He felt
that these statistics could also be regarded as indicating the extent to which Customs resources were deployed on screening as much as indicating the incidence of transmission. He said that although the statistics
were incomplete, in the period 1 July to 23 November 1977, 236 articles
found to contain narcotic drugs were forfeited in States other than New
South Wales, and that this number would have been at least 350 if New
South Wales forfeitures were included.
A senior officer of the Narcotics Bureau said in confidential
session that staff resources would not allow inspection of every article and agreed it was true that considerable quantities of heroin were being imported by m a i l . However he said the detection rate in this area was
considered to be good. Several Customs Sub-Collectors of Parcels Post
on the other hand expressed concern at the amount of heroin they
believed was escaping detection.
A206
A Narcotics Bureau officer listed some of the methods used to
conceal drugs of various types in letters and parcels detected at the
Sydney Mail E x c h a n g e . These i n c l u d e d :
* in plastic bags b etween the pages of letters, in plastic bags
b etween two postcards taped together and placed in an envelope and
in plastic bags rolled inside magazines and newspapers;
* in cut-out pages of books and in the covers of photograph a l b u m s ;
* in the hollowed-out heels of s h o e s , inside small ornaments and lamp bases and in cut-out sections of picture frames and wooden carvings;
* in record cassettes and film canisters;
* in the corrugated cardboard wrapped around ornaments and in
m a tchboxes, toothpaste tubes, talcum powder tins and toys.
Some articles which the witness said were favoured for concealment
of cannabis oil included medicine bottles, plastic toys and
contraceptives among personal effects. Another witness told of hashish oil being detected in small quantities soaked into the centre pages of
such journals as the Asia Business Weekly.
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) had been found impregnated in
blotting paper, the lining of a cornflakes packet, the lining of a
record cover, paper inside a matchbox and in packing material, the
witness added.
Another witness, Detective Senior Sergeant T. N. Ferguson of the
Queensland State Police Drug Squad, pointed to the difficulties of
detecting LSD 'pills' when he explained they could be colourless or
purple, and could be less than the size of a pinhead and could be
secreted even under a postage st a m p . Another Brisbane witness said he
believed certain religious sects were involved in importations of LSD
in a crystalline form impregnated in religious mosiac types of
manuscripts.
A senior Customs officer in Adelaide told of two seizures of
cannabis at Parcels Post in that city. In the first instance, a box of
chocolates wrapped in Christmas paper was noticed not to be sealed with
cellophane. A slab of 163 g of cannabis was found under the first layer
of chocolates. In the second instance, two framed paintings from
Thailand which appeared to have unusually thick backing were found to
contain 1100 g of cannabis behind the b a c k i n g .
A senior investigator of the Narcotics Bureau in Western Australia who in confidential session referred to the problem of drug
importations, especially heroin, in first-class mail, told of one system that had been uncovered which enabled 8 oz of heroin a week to be
imported. Three men obtained addresses of unoccupied flats and houses. They also obtained a post office box in a false n a m e . Two men flew to
A207
Penang and sent ba c k small quantities of heroin in first class mail to
the various a d d r e s s e s . In fact 13 g of heroin were intercepted. One
ma n obtained 454 g of heroin from a Chinese opium den p r o prietor in
Penang. An Indian told him how to disguise the heroin in Christmas mail
b y placing a small plastic sachet containing about 5 g of heroin inside
a Christmas card and ironing it flat wi t h a household iron. Two cards
were received containing No. 3 heroin that had been ironed flat in the
sachet in this manner. No noise or shifting of weight could be detected
on shaking the envelope. Although this scheme was apparently not put
into operation, and the two men returned to Australia, the witness
believed that this type of operation was being developed by a number of
people, especially in South-East Asia. Christmas was selected because
of the large volume of mail arriving at that time wh i c h is not e x a m i n e d .
The witness also b e lieved that the pro p o r t i o n of drugs intercepted in
the mail was only about one-half of 1%.
A resident of a N S W rehabilitation centre referred in confidential
session to a man he knew by the name of Peter:
This Peter guy goes to Penang about every two m o n t h s , and mails
dope in heaps of letters, like he would send maybe a pound of
heroin in little letters, in hundreds of letters, to one or two
or three n e w l y constructed apartment houses, where they had
built them, but people haven't moved in...so wh e n the postman
delivers the letters he doesn't know there is anything funny,
he just assumes the first guy has moved in t h e r e .
(CT)
The witness indicated 'Peter' was back in Sydney by the time the
letters were delivered, being away only a few days.
A Queensland State Police officer told the following story---which
was later substantiated by other well-qualified w i t n e s s e s---concerning a known criminal operating in Brisbane:
(He) is alleged to leave Australia on a false passport every
four months. He visits Thailand and obtains the heroin, he
then proceeds to Singapore where he purchases toys and
m a g a z i n e s , the heroin is then concealed in these items. He
wraps them and addresses them to (Post Offices near Brisbane).
The last shipment contained 1500 g of heroin and was made up of
three parcels wrapped with br o w n paper and tied with blue
s t r i n g . ..
(He) left Singapore immediately after posting the parcels and arrived in Australia before the items posted did. (He) then
secured the services of (an associate) to visit the Post
Offices and collect the parcels.
(Confidential Exhibit)
A208
IMPORTATION IN CARGO
Many witnesses drew attention to the potentiality for smuggling
through cargo, especially in containerised cargo. The volume of all
types of cargo entering A u s t ralia, the size of individual containers and the need to facilitate cargo to consignees combine to give what some
witnesses described as 'the perfect opportunity' to smuggle not only
drugs but other types of illegal importations.
A Preventive Officer of the Bureau of Customs with considerable
experience in cargo said when referring to the Sydney waterfront:
All recent large narcotics finds have been made in c a r g o . Most
finds have been personal importation although some have been in commercial importations. We have knowledge of commercial
consignments containing narcotics being m i s s e d .
(CT)
Evidence from Messrs. W. Peck and P. R. P a r a g g i o , representatives of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association whose members
include Boarding and Examining Officers of the Bureau of Customs said:
...we believe that any person with even a limited knowledge of
commercial cargo procedures will be aware that the enormous
volume hopelessly outweighs the limited resources assigned for examination and control p u r p o s e s .
The significant feature of importation by ship or air cargo is
the opportunity available to import large quantities of drugs with the minimum risk.
However, the emphasis is placed on the prevention of drugs
through passengers baggage, and the baggage of crew members of ships and aircraft. We consider that this avenue of
importation offers the greatest risk of detection and nets
significantly smaller quantities of drugs per seizure than the commercial cargo a r e a .
(OT 12970)
Containerised Cargo
Messrs Peck and Paraggio were particularly concerned about the
potential containers, especially full container load (FCL) containers, presented to the intending importer. By way of example they described a
case that occurred in January 1977:
An FCL container of rubber was imported by a group of
individuals acting under a fictitious company n a m e . The
contents were duly entered for home consumption and Customs
release authority obtained. Delivery of the container was
taken by the importers from the terminal at which it had been
discharged.
A209
The d i scovery of a large quantity of money in a laundry bag
deposited at a laundromat triggered an investigation that
disclosed that besides the rubber, the contents of the
container had included drugs.
The method of importation (FCL container) and the type of cargo
m a n ifested (rubber) had been used as a means of circumventing
Customs control.
What is significant about this case is that even if the
container had been selected for examination, the importer would have had access to the contents during the course of the
removal and prior to an appointment being made for a Customs
officer to conduct the examination.
(OT 12976C)
A Narcotics Bureau officer in confidential evidence said he believed that the amount of drugs recovered in the above-mentioned case was 'very very small' compared with the potential of the shipment.
Messrs Peck and Paraggio and other witnesses described what they saw as weaknesses in the method of Customs clearance whereby cargo was
cleared on d ocumentation before it landed in Australia or where it was
removed 'under bond' from the wharves and cleared later after inspection at a consignee's premises. A Customs Preventive Officer who in
confidential session was p a r t i cularly critical of the method of
inspection at a consignee's premises said:
...we are dealing with (as far as narcotics go) a very small
package worth a massive amount of money. N o w a container can
hold up to 18 tonnes of cargo but to import 18 tonnes of heroin
would be financially impossible. What is more likely to come
in would be something in the range of 20 to 30 kilos. That
could be included in a decent sized suitcase, so a man like a
supervisor at a consignee's s t o r e ,...anybody who is importing
containers: the supervisor's responsibility is to go around in the morning, break the seal on every container and open the
door. For one man to be bribed, all he has to do t h e n---when
he breaks the seal and opens the d o o r---before the storemen and
packers come in to unload the container, is to take his package
out and walk away with it.
(CT)
This witness submitted that containers provided the greatest
potential to any person who wished to import not only narcotics, but
because of the space provided, arms and ammunition also. He named
various members of the Sydney underworld as having an active interest in containers and container repairing companies.
A210
General Ships' Cargo
Evidence was also given to the Commission about other smuggling
attempts using general ships' cargo not packed in containers. This
evidence included:
* a former Government analyst who in confidential evidence told of
four-gallon drums of olive oil with special sections soldered in and filled with hashish;
* a senior Commonwealth Police officer who quoted a case involving six
p e o p l e , mostly of Lebanese origin, arrested in November 1976 by
Narcotics Bureau agents while dismantling three wooden crates in
w h i c h were concealed 90 kg of hashish and hashish oil;
* an Eastern Region officer of the Narcotics Bureau who told in
confidential session of the seizure of 141 kg of cannabis resin from
cargo discharged from the ship Marconi and another connected seizure of 1.3 kg of hashish oil in a whisky bottle;
* Mr R. J. Beattie, former Collector of Customs for T a s m a n i a , who told
of 39 kg of cannabis seized in Hobart concealed in the false bottom
of a specially made wooden case.
The anonymous witness 'Mr Melbourne (1)' said motor car parts were used
for smuggling drugs. He said one way to do this was to arrange for a
car pa r t to have a bogus identification number and send it to a
relatively small dealer who would normally not have drug c o n n e c t i o n s . A person would then go to the car dealer and specify the bogus car part
n u m b e r .
Deck Cargo
The use of motor vehicles or small boats imported either as cargo or
as personal effects as a means of smuggling large quantities of drugs
was also noted by several witnesses who spoke of the attraction to
traffickers of being able to pack and unpack the drugs in relative
privacy, and of being able to transport the drug 'shipment' with ease
from the port of entry.
Several spectacular seizures were mentioned, including the case in wh i c h two elderly American women were arrested after seizure of a total
of 1978 kg of cannabis resin hidden under the floorboards of a German-
made camper v a n at Gosford, New South Wales. The presence of the
hashish in the camper van was detected by a Customs Preventive Officer
who had drilled a small hole in the under-side of the vehicle's floor.
Another detection described by a Narcotics Bureau officer was that
involving 58.6 kg of cannabis in the form of Buddha sticks secreted in a
Ford Galaxie car imported from Bangkok. Another witness said the
operation was so sophisticated that the tyres of the vehicle contained
cannabis packed in such a way that it would have be e n driven without the
driver detecting anything u n u s u a l .
A211
Adelaide evidence included information concerning a Renault car
unloaded from the MV Vishva Vinhuti in Ja n u a r y 1978 wh i c h contained 95
kg of cannabis resin. The driver, a German student visiting Australia
on a temporary visa, had been promised $US10 000 on delivery of the
vehicle in Sydney.
Evidence detailed in the Chapter 4 of this Part of the Report
'Exportation of Illegal Drugs' details the Sydney case of a large
quantity of cannabis found secreted in a yacht crated as deck cargo from
Bangkok and en route to the United States in 1976.
Air Cargo Concealment
Witnesses gave examples of many of the methods quoted above also
being used to smuggle drugs through air cargo, either as a normal
freight shipment or as 'unaccompanied b a g g a g e ' . The latter is a
freighting method offered by airlines wh i c h enables passengers with
personal effects in excess of the normal baggage allowance to ship
personal effects by air, in aircraft arriving at the passengers'
destination within a short time of their arrival.
As well as the 'unaccompanied b a g g a g e ' examples quoted earlier,
other examples of smuggling through commercial air freight services
cited to the Commission included:
* 8417 g of cannabis packed in b etween layers of plywood used as
packing for three shipments of paintings from Bangkok to Adelaide.
A Customs officer had noted hairline cracks be t w e e n the layers of
plywood in the first shipment and had prised open the layers;
* 4 kg of opium impregnated in 22 Batik wall tapestries detected at
Perth in January 1977.
Ship and Aircraft Concealment
Evidence indicated that the use of hiding places in commercial ships and aircraft for smuggling drugs usually was associated with involvement of crew m e m b e r s . Drugs have been found hidden in many parts of ships'
structures as well as in toilets, underneath stairways and in locker
roo m s . The Commission noted that Bureau of Customs Special Service
Bulletins contained details of possible hiding places in merchant ships as a guide to officers conducting searches.
The 13.5 kg of heroin detected in Fremantle in September 1979 in the
vessel Kota Bali was said to be the largest detection of heroin imported
by this m e t h o d .
Among allegations attributed to former Narcotics Bureau agents
Deane-Spread and Colmer in articles published in the Bulletin magazine in August 1977 was the following statement:
A212
Some of these (Chinese-crewed) ships are specially built for
smuggling. There was a Hong Kong vessel seized in 1974 which
had secret passages not shown on the ship's official p l a n s .
The crewmen have been known to go to elaborate lengths to hide
drugs, hollowing out bollards and building false b u l k h e a d s .
Many of these hides were designed wh e n it was profitable to
smuggle cheap watches and radios into Australia. Now they are
used for n a r c o t i c s ...
Some evidence indicated that because larger ships with smaller crews was the predominant trend in modern shipping, the incidence of smuggling by ship was decreasing. On the other hand some witnesses pointed to the
fact that increases in commercial air traffic also increased the
likelihood of smuggling b y this means.
Mr A. E. Hutchison, NSW Assistant Collector of Customs (Air
Services), said that while the possibility of concealment within an
aircraft itself had long been a problem, there was little evidence to
suggest commercial aircraft were in fact being used to smuggle drugs
into Australia (OT 9541). Mr T. A. Chaseling, Security Manager for
Qantas, said in evidence in April 1978 only five crew members had been
convicted on drug charges since 1975 and that while employees had the
means to import drugs no hard evidence had shown it was occurring to any
great extent (OT 1 0 0 4 7 - - 4 8 ) .
GENERAL
Drugs illegally imported into Australia must first breach the
Customs screen. A strong Customs Department concentrating on
maintaining an effective primary screen at Australia's borders is
essential. Once drugs pass this primary screen they become inextricably mixed in the illegal commerce in drugs, whether imported or domestic.
All States and Territories presently have laws prohibiting this
commerce. These laws can be seen as a secondary screen designed to
p revent the trafficked goods reaching the consumer.
It is clear that, by their n a t u r e , certain illegal drugs lend
themselves most readily to particular methods of importation. The
method is determined largely by the value of the drug in relation to its
volume. This in turn decides what importers would consider an
e c onomic---or, more correctly, perhaps, lucrative---quantity for
importation. Thus LSD may enter the country in small quantities
concealed in blotting paper and under postage stamps while heroin is
apparently imported in considerable amounts through first-class and
other mail articles, but it is also well suited to concealment and
importation on the per s o n or internally concealed in the body. Cannabis oil, on account of its concentrated n a t u r e , has been imported in
personal baggage, in electronic equipment, typewriters, and similar
articles, and in some instances ingested within the body. Cannabis
resin is often secreted in conventional cargos such as tinned foodstuffs while cannabis tops (Buddha sticks, etc) have been imported in b a l e Â
sized packages by ocean-going yachts. H o w e v e r , these are only
A213
generalisations and instances of, for e x a m p l e , cannabis tops being
imported in small quantities in small mail articles are not u n k n o w n .
It is appropriate to note that most, if not all, methods described
here have been used overseas also. For example, the Le Dain (Canadian)
report on cannabis (Open Exhibit 20) described at page 173 hashish
shipments from the Middle East being introduced into the U.S. and
Canadian market via drops off the coast and by concealment in machinery
and motor vehicles. At page 177, the description of the situation
around the Mexican--!!.S. border and the use of light aircraft and small
boats for smuggling activities parallels evidence received by this
Commission in relation to Australia.
Clearly, there is wide scope for drug smugglers to exercise their
ingenuity in devising ways to circumvent the Customs screen or other
controls set up to p revent illegal importation of drugs into Australia. Were the consequences of drug abuse not so tragic, one might see the
contest between the enforcement agent on the one side and the trafficker and/or courier on the other as a game of skill in which each tries to
outwit the o t h e r . Figures for drug seizures make one suspect that the
score is at present v e r y much in the law-breakers' favour.
For effective deterrence there must be for the smuggler an
unacceptably high risk of detection and the certain knowledge that heavy penalties will follow detection. To achieve the first of these
requirements it is necessary for law enforcement always to be a step
ahead of the law-breaker to foresee changes in tactics and strategy and
to foil these. This is no easy task, and law enforcement agencies must
be ready and prepared to switch their efforts into different avenues
when it becomes apparent, or even likely, that importation routes or
methods are changing. It is a mistake to conclude that because a
particular drug is not being detected in illegal importation through a
given c hannel---heroin entering the country in general cargo, for
example---that it is not being imported at all by that m e a n s ; the fact
is that the detection system in this country presently leaves much to be
desired. Repeating the words of Mr D . J. Mitchell, Southern Region
Commander of the Narcotics B u r e a u :
Methods used in the illegal importation of drugs are restricted only by the imagination of the i m p o r t e r .
(OT 2331)
This Chapter has attempted to show h o w drugs in general are
illegally imported into Australia. Examples deal mainly with
c annabis---cannabis tops, resin and o i l--- and heroin, which are the
drugs most commonly detected at present, but m ention is made of LSD and
other drugs. It has to be recognised that drugs currently in fashion in
Australia could be joined, or perhaps r e p l a c e d , by others that have
either not yet made significant appearance on the street market here
(though they ma y have done so elsewhere) or have had an earlier period
of popularity and are reappearing. For e x a m p l e , recent United Nations
data show that coca paste is much used in South America, while cocaine
is increasingly in demand in the higher socio-economic strata in North
A214
America and Western Europe. Cocaine is a drug of a f f l u e n c e , and though
substantial abuse of this drug seems never to have taken root in
Australia there could be a trend in this direction at some future time.
Amphetamine-type s u b s t a n c e s , after a relatively quiet period, are again, and increasingly, being abused in all parts of the world, but especially in Japan. Abuse of barbiturates and non-barbiturate s e d a t i v e s ,
tranquillizers, and other psychoactive substances is once more on the
increase and some new hallucinogenic substances have made an appearance in recent years. Though it is not suggested that special methods of
importation might be used in respect of such d r u g s , enforcement agencies should not complacently assume that the only drugs they are likely to
encounter in their prevention work are cannabis and heroin with rare
instances of other drugs in small amounts.
A215
A216
Chapter 3 Extent of Importation of Illegal Drugs
The growing extent of drug abuse in Australia is part of a worldwide
trend, and the problem of illegal importing of drugs has reached major
proportions during the last decade. Substantial amounts of illicit
drugs are available on the world market and there can be no doubt that
traffickers see Australia as a significant and expanding market.
Informed witnesses agreed that it would, generally speaking, be true to say that all illicit drugs other than some forms of cannabis were
imported although there has occasionally been some localised
manufacturing of amphetamines, LSD, and at one time of heroin. The
drugs illicitly imported and trafficked are mainly heroin and cannabis and to a much smaller extent hallucinogens and cocaine. A considerable
amount of locally grown cannabis is now consumed in Australia but the more potent forms of cannabis ---Buddha sticks, hashish and hashish
oil ---are imported almost exclusively.
There is no way of determining with any accuracy what quantities of
drugs are illegally imported into Australia every year since, clearly, it is a major preoccupation of illegal importers to avoid detection.
The Commission can only report and analyse what is known and attempt to
identify trends and draw some broad inferences when the information
appears to warrant them.
Seizure statistics provide a historical record of amounts of drugs prevented from reaching the street market, but they cannot be used with
any confidence to show what quantities of drugs are successfully
imported illegally. The reason seizure data are unreliable measures is that the interception success rate is unknown and almost certainly
highly variable. Seizures depend on the manpower and other resources
deployed to detect illegal importations of drugs; on the varying levels of efficiency of enforcement agencies and on their selection of targets for intensive surveillance; on effective information gathering and the quick dissemination and proper use of the information; on the changing
tactics of importers and organisers of importations; a n d , of course, on chance. Possibly not more than 10â 15 per cent of illegally imported
drugs is detected and seized, but even this figure is based on intuition
rather than on factual evidence. In fact, estimates made by the
Commission with respect to heroin use by addicts in Australia suggest
that as little as 1 per cent of illegally imported heroin is seized.
Even when special efforts are made to improve detection methods and to increase the manpower and other resources devoted to drug detection, and they result in greater seizures, there is no way of knowing, unless
indirect evidence can be found, whether these represent a larger
proportion of the illegal importations or whether increased quantities of drugs are being imported and the proportion detected has remained
more or less the same.
A217
Except for seizure statistics, there are few reliable indicators of the extent of illegal importation of d r u g s . The value and significance
of several of these indicators are considered later in this C h a p t e r .
D E TECTION AN D SEIZURE OF ILLEGALLY IMPORTED DRUGS
Mr H. Bates, Commissioner of the Narcotics Bureau, giving evidence
to the Commission in November 1977, pointed o u t :
When you take into consideration the fact you have vast numbers
of people entering the country in concentrated periods, you
have got remote areas of the coastline accessible to
clandestine landings and visits, you have several hundred
remote airstrips in the north; it is impossible to believe that
this country could operate a sufficient force to maintain the
level of checks necessary to detect illicit drug importations
through these various a v e n u e s .
Add to that the really proficient methods of concealment now
being u s e d ; even the normal routine customs screening that
occurs would find it difficult to detect concealments of that
nature. As such it becomes necessary to develop advance
knowledge of the people and the methods and the areas that are
being used by drug traffickers and that obviously comes from
the intelligence operations.
(OT 329)
As discussed in Part VI of this Report, senior Customs officers
repeatedly spoke in Commission hearings about the difficulties of
thoroughly searching all passengers arriving at an international
airport, pointing out that in 1978 as many as 1200 passengers had to be
cleared at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport within an hour.
Broadly speaking, the avenues of illegal importation include
individuals and paid couriers carrying drugs concealed on the person or in baggage and personal effects and arriving mainly b>? air but also by
s e a ; unaccompanied baggage and general freight; the overseas mail; air or sea drops along quiet stretches of coast; and direct importations by
sea or air in unguarded p l a c e s , possibly through elaborate operations. These methods are described more fully in Part IV, Chapter 2.
RECORDING OF DRUG SEIZURES
On behalf of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, the
Narcotics Bureau maintains statistics for quantities of drugs seized by the Bureau of Customs and the Narcotics Bureau itself. Mr H. Bates
explained that where the Narcotics Bureau was involved in an
investigation and seized d r u g s , those drugs were accounted for and
recorded in the Narcotics Bureau seizure statistics, even though a State or Territory police prosecution might follow because of insufficient
evidence to support a Commonwealth prosecution. He added, however, that quite a substantial quantity of drugs seized by State and Territory
A218
police was not recorded by the Narcotics Bureau (OT 288--S9) because
they did not receive the information.
The Commonwealth Police Australia Crime Intelligence Centre compiles statistics for drug seizures by both Commonwealth and State law
enforcement agencies including the Narcotics Bureau, based on the Drug Intelligence Reports scheme. A Commonwealth Police officer giving
evidence in confidential session discussed difficulties associated with measuring the extent of illegal importation from seizure statistics:
In the figures that I will produce tomorrow we have separated
not only the quantities of drugs seized and weighed and advised to us by State police and the Narcotics Bureau, but also the
number of seizures advised to us whether the quantities were
stated or not. This is a very serious error of omission and
for 1976 we had nearly 9000 s e i z u r e s , and of those there were
3648 with some sort of quantity stated and 3993 with no
quantity stated whatsoever.
We went further than that. We got our people coding this
information to try and work out from the narrative part of the
form whether they would guess that the quantity involved was
small---that is, less than 50 g r a m s . And there were about 1250
seizures that fell into that category---a further 1250
s e i z u r e s , and there were 41 further seizures for which it was
obvious that the quantity was greater than 50 g r a m s , but we had
no idea how big it was.
(CT)
In this connection the Commission heard other evidence that Drug
Intelligence Reports were not invariably or consistently submitted by State police to the Commonwealth Police, partly because of the poor
relations, and even distrust, existing between the Commonwealth Police and other police forces (see also Part VI, Chapter 1: Australian Federal P o l i c e ) .
Copies of the Commonwealth Police publication Drug Abuse in
Australia for the years 1970 to 1977 were submitted in evidence by the
Commonwealth Police (Open Exhibit 42). These reports include data for
drug seizures reported by all law enforcement agencies in Australia,
although as already mentioned they may be incomplete, particularly for some States. Although the totals include quantities of drugs seized by
State a u t h o r i t i e s , wh i c h would not necessarily have been reported to the Narcotics Bureau, they proved to contain so many inconsistencies as to
be almost meaningless.
Tables I V . 1 and IV.2 show national totals of drug seizures by all
Australian law enforcement agencies reporting to the Australia Crime
Intelligence Centre in 1971 and 1977 respectively. Table IV.2 is
reproduced here as an example of the system of recording now adopted by
the Commonwealth Police. This table goes into very much more detail
than either the earlier Commonwealth Police table or the Department of
A219
Quantities of Drugs Seized in 1970
Table IV.1
N a r c o t i c s
A m p h e t a m i n e s
a n d
S t i m u l a n t s
B a r b i t u r a t e s a n d
D e p r e s s a n t s
A m p h e t a m i n e s
a n d
B a r b i t u r a t e s
M a r i h u a n a
L . S . D .
T o t a l s
T a b l e t s 1 4 5 9 5 7 4 4 9 2 5 8 8 0 5 0 0 - - 4 8 4 2 4
A m p o u l e s 3 6 0 - 64 - - - 4 2 4
V o l u m e
(mis)
2 4 7 7 0 - - - - - 24 7 7 0
W e i g h t
(gms)
4 4 0 0 11 3 4 0 - 94 8 0 0 - 1 1 0 5 4 0
' D o s e s 1 - - - - - 2 9 1 0 0 2 9 1 0 0
P l a n t s - - - - 2 5 7 - 2 5 7
S e e d s - - - 2 0 8 7 - 2 0 8 7
(Source: Commonwealth Police Technical Report Number 3 - 'Drug Abuse in Australia - A Statistical Survey')
Business and Consumer Affairs' tables. Accordingly, it is not really
feasible to fully equate the more detailed Commonwealth Police figures with the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs' statistics. For
e x a m p l e , the more recent Commonwealth Police table breaks cannabis down into 'cannabis plants', 'cannabis seeds', 'marihuana', 'Buddha s t i c k s ', 'h a s h i s h ' , 'hashish oil', and 'c a n n a b i n o l '---many more categories than the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs now recognises.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the Commonwealth Police data include quantities of drugs seized that were either not imported or were not imported illegally;
this consideration will affect particularly the various forms of
cannabis and synthetic drugs used in medical practice. It is worth
noting, however, that the amphetamines may in part have been illegally
imported since their medical use is now very limited and highly
controlled. However, an illicit amphetamine laboratory was detected in 1978 so local production probably accounts for a significant proportion of the amount seized.
The Commission also examined tables for drug seizures in the annual
reports of the Department of Customs and Excise for 1967--68, 1 9 6 8 - - 6 9 ,
1969--70, 1970--71, 1971 â 72, 1972--73, 1973 â 74, 1975 and 1976, and the
Department of Business and Consumer Affairs Annual Report for 1977 â 78. A close study of these tables is made more difficult by changes in
reporting over the years and by certain inconsistencies. For example,
reporting periods have changed from financial years to calendar y e a r s . Earlier reporting of drugs referred to weights (grams, kilograms) and
also to volumes (litres), tablets, capsules, packets, ampoules, doses
A220
Weighed Drug Seizures* - National Totals for all Law Enforcement Agencies - Combined Figures - Australia, 1977
Table IV.2
Weight Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Dose units
(gram) seeds plants tablets ampoules capsules (LSD only) * 1 2 * 4
Cocaine 556.086 - - - 2
Codeine 1.000 - - 34 -
Dextromoramide (Palfium) 2.000 - - 773 -
Hydromorphone 0.000 - 78 -
Methadone 29.550 - - 1633 3
Morphine 234.072 - - 23 50
Opium 4691.325 - - - -
Oxycodone 117.575 - - - -
Pethidine 238.000 - - 427 62
Phenoperidine 0.000 - - - -
Pholcodine 16.500 - - - -
Heroin 21 741.365 - ⢠- 31 18
Fortral 0.000 - - - 10
Cannabis plants 25 291.281 - 290 100 - -
Cannabis seeds 11 118.036 109 301 - - -
Marihuana/Indian Hemp 5 286 963.145 - - - -
Hashish 265 329.102 - - - -
Cannabinol 569.310 - - - 2
Hashish oil 38 398.250 - - - -
âBuddha sticks' 191 252.094 - - - -
Amphetamine 663.900 - - - -
Me thylamphe tamine 22.500 - - 33 -
Methylphendiate (Ritalin)
7.080 295 -
âOther Amphetamineâ 0 . 0 0 0 - - 295 -
Methaqualone (Mandrax) 0 . 0 0 0 - - 4626 -
Amlyobarbitone 0 . 0 0 0 - - 18 -
âOther Barbiturateâ 84.150 - - 414 123
Mogadon 0 . 0 0 0 - - 37 -
Diazepam (Valium) 0.200 - - 704 42
27
1
126 105
7 2
884
153 139
4 6
1
19
139 127
11 864
Table IV.2 (cont.)
Weight Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Dose units
(gram) seeds plants tablets ampoules capsules (LSD only)
Oxazepam (Serepax) 0 .0 0 0 - - 40 -
'Other Tranquillisers' 0 .0 0 0 - 204 -
'Other anti-depressants' 0 .0 0 0 - - 20 -
LSD 31.870 - - 457 -
Psilocybine/Psilocin 569.936 - 328 - -
Mescaline 0 .0 0 0 - - 4 -
STP/'Bromo-STP' 0 .0 0 0 - - 786 -
'Other'/Miscellaneous 15.000 - - 238 6
2
2
5
53 *
5376
* Drugs seized, with an estimate of their weight/quantity reported to the Australia Crime Intelligence Centre.
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Survey - 'Drug Abuse in Australia 1977')
and dose u n i t s . Only in the most recent table from the 1977--78 Annual
Report of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, are
quantities reduced uniformly to weights (grams), except for LSD, which continues to be stated in dose units.
Furthermore, the earlier tables listed, for example, 'raw opium', 'prepared opium', 'liquid opium', 'opium dross', and 'other opium',
later to become simply 'opium', thereby reflecting the changing status of opium for Australia. Similarly, in the earliest table (1967--68)
'cannabis' is unqualified but gradually this changes to 'cannabis',
'reefers', and 'cannabis seeds' (1968--69), to 'cannabis', 'cannabis
seeds' and 'cannabis plants' (1973--74), and then to 'cannabis oil',
'cannabis' and 'cannabis plants' (1 976--30.6.78). It is noted that no
mention is made in these tables of 'cannabis tops', i.e., Buddha or Thai
sticks, or of 'cannabis resin'.
The reporting changes, however justified, make direct comparisons more than a little difficult. A few of the tables are reproduced here
for purposes of comparison (Tables IV.3 to IV.5 ).
An additional complication to the use of the tables of seizures
recorded by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs is that the
data include seizures made by State police if there was Narcotics Bureau participation in the seizure. Many seizures are therefore also recorded by State police and notified to the Commonwealth Police Australia Crime Intelligence Centre via the Drug Intelligence Reports. But as we have
seen, those reports are not invariably submitted to the Commonwealth
Table IV. 3
Narcotic Drug Seizures 1967-68
kilograms
R a w opium ............................................... 1.689
Prepared o p i u m ..................................... 6.284
Morphine/caffeine mixture ............................ 1.360
Opium dross . 0.756
H e r o i n ............................................... 3.002
C a n n a b i s ............................................... 2.812
litres
Liquid opium .......................................... 4.049
(Source:Department of Customs and Excise Annual Report for 1967-68.)
A223
Table IV.4
Drug Seizures
Type Unit 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 (a)1973-74
Cannabis g 160 896 273 762 392 799 1 246 630
seeds 1307 382 182 2004
plants - ~ 41
Cocaine g - 3 446.5 30
Depressants tablets 75 513 192 -
g 1477 22 ~ 107.1
Heroin g 1728 1974 1385.5 3711
ml - 2 -
LSD tablets
tickets ) )
42 458 69 020 64 574 11 019
Morphine g 32 156.5 187.8
ampoules 6 8 - -
tablets 46 - -
Opium g 6551 6055 731.3 5643.4
ml - 245 -
Stimulants tablets 234 1058 1028
g 11 356 108 68 242.2
(a) As at 31.5.74
( S o u r c e:Department of Customs and Excise Annual Report for 1973-74.)
Table IV.5
Drug Seizures
Type of Drug 1974 1975 1976 1977
1.1.78Â 30.6.78
Opium (gms) 6132 4816 4509 4139 841
Heroin (gms) 5079 5938 15 351 11 711 14 340
Morphine (gms) 279 863 47 14 5
Cocaine (gms) 47 338 1561 140 -
LSD (dose units) 5505 9131 1458 1880 3
Cannabis Oil (gms) 4809 32 859 45 083 37 246 28 408
Cannabis (gms) 342 405 885 476 1 226 922 703 967 7 253 275
(plants) 913 822 855 1874 64
Prosecutions commenced
610 840 595 603 218
(Source: Department of Business and Consumer Affairs Annual Report for 1977-78)
A224
Police to be recorded statistically. Although the addition of
Department of Business and Consumer Affairs figures for seizures of
illegally imported drugs to seizure figures tablulated by the
Commonwealth Police from reports made by State police forces should, in theory, accurately express the amounts of the different drugs seized
throughout the Commonwealth year by year, this is not necessarily the
case. A considerable effort of interpretation is required.
DRUG SEIZURES R ECORDED BY THE NARCOTICS BUREAU
The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs in its first
submission to the Commission provided a table (Open Exhibit 1) of drug
seizures and prosecutions recorded by the Narcotics Bureau for the
period January 1967 to October 1977. Subsequently, the Narcotics
Bureau, acting on a request from the Commission, submitted corresponding figures for the whole of 1977, 1978, and the first half of 1979 to
update the earlier t a b l e . The consolidated figures are shown here in
Table IV.6.
Certain trends are apparent in these figures. Much less opium is
now being imported. A n enormous quantity was seized in 1967 but at that
time opium was used by members of the Asian, especially the ethnic
Chinese, community in Australia. It was not, and is not, a drug
preferred by E u r o p e a n s . The older Asian opium addicts are now dying
o u t . In the middle 1960s users in the Asian community began to favour
heroin. Mr H. Bates thought that this was partly because heroin is
easier to handle and to dispose of in case of a raid. Opium is a
treacle-like substance and extremely difficult to flush down a toilet or sink (OT 2 9 0 - - 9 1 ) . It is also bulky and has much lower weight-to-value
or weight-to-effeet ratios than heroin. Heroin be g a n to grow in
popularity with Australians probably towards the end of the 1960s.
Importations of cannabis products have in later years been
influenced by local cultivation of cannabis in Australia and the
tendency has been to import the more potent and concentrated, and thus
more valuable, Buddha sticks, cannabis resin and, since 1973, cannabis oil that are either not produced or are not produced in any significant
quantity in Australia. L S D , after a period of intense interest and
experimentation, has fallen out of favour wi t h drug u s e r s . Cocaine is a
particularly expensive drug that has never achieved the popularity in
Australia as a drug of abuse that it has in Europe and, especially, in
No r t h America.
DRUG IMPORTATIONS STATE BY STATE
Informed witnesses in all States and Territories gave evidence to
the Commission on incidents involving importation and attempted
importation of d r u g s , and the rising frequency of these incidents, and
also provided figures for total or significant seizures. N e w South
Wales, as the most populous State, is clearly the ma i n target area for
illegal importations of most drugs through 'conv e n t i o n a l ' air, sea, and postal routes. However, Mr J . A. Travers, a Chief Inspector of the
Narcotics Bureau Western Region, said in Perth that recent drug seizures
A225
Drug Seizures Recorded by the Narcotics Bureau, 1967 to June 1979
Type of drug3 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971
Opium (g) 21 530 3660 889 9685 6094
Heroin (g) 2572 1977 196 1405 2468
Morphine (g) - 1387 8 amps 150 tbs
18 amps
31
Cocaine (g) - - - 120 tbs 4
LSD (doses) 237 - 386 17 611 21 688
Cannabis oil (g) - - - - -
Cannabis (g)*3 1376 5654 47 809 98 078 178 654
1972
2746
2018
16 amps
198
69 863
533 846
1973
2960
3116
1536
120
23 442
6193
1 101 406
indicated that amounts of drugs illegally imported into Western
Australia were at least e q u i v a l e n t , per head of population, to amounts
imported into Sydney and M e l b o u r n e . An analysis by the Commission of
Narcotics Bureau figures does indeed show that Western Australia and
Victoria vied for second place in respect to heroin importations in 1977 and 1978.
Importations of drugs into Tasmania is a minimal problem, according to Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmania Police (OT 1 0 7 5 - - 7 6 ) . There
is no international airport on the island and little overseas shipping
making Tasmania a first port of call. The figures show Tasmania usually
well down the list, or at the bottom, but there are occasions when large
seizures are m a d e ; for e x a m p l e , Tasmania is in second place for
importations of cannabis oil in 1978. It is believed that such 'out-of character' seizures indicate chance detections of consignments of drugs intended for other destinations or deliberate use of Tasmania as a
1 staging p o s t ' in getting drugs into the mainland States undetected.
To all intents and purposes, the A.C.T. can be disregarded in
connection with drug importations since it has neither an international airport nor, except for the Jervis Bay area, a coastline. Direct
importations would presumably have to be made through such devices as
sealed cargo containers or air freight conveyed to the A.C.T. without
undergoing a Customs i n s p e c t i o n .
Queensland and South Australia fall about the middle of the r a n g e .
Brisbane has an international air terminal but the volume of traffic
there is below that at the other Australian international airports. On
the other h a n d , there is still a considerable volume of shipping,
including general overseas cargo and containers. South Australia has no international airport and there is now much less shipping through South
Australian ports.
The Northern T e r r i t o r y , together with the north â west of Western
Australia, is an obvious target for large-scale importations involving 'non-c o n v e n t i o n a l ' air and sea r o u t e s . This is reflected in the
occasional very large seizures of, for e x a m p l e , cannabis tops in the
Northern Territory in 1978 and in Western Australia in 1977. In
a d d i t i o n , the Northern Territory has an international airport situated close to South-East Asia.
The following tabulations show the relative ranking of the States and Territories for four categories of drugs for the years 1977 and 1978. The data are taken from more extensive tables prepared by the Commission in a detailed, analytical study consolidating seizure statistics reported
in the Narcotics Bureau evidence to the Commission.
A227
HEROIN*
1978
NSW 12 743.9
VIC 2 070.3
WA 1 976.8
QLD 693.7
SA 205.1
NT 179.5
A.C.T. 10.2
TAS -
TOTAL * grams
17 879.5
CANNABIS TOPS*
1978
NSW 4 974 253.9
NT 186 152.2
WA 8 570.9
SA 2 947.1
VIC 2 607.9
TAS 2 284.4
QLD 664.3
A.C.T. 5.7
TOTAL 5 177 486.4
* grams
CANNABIS RESIN*
1977
NSW 6 442.0
WA 3 085.8
VIC 1 573.5
QLD 268.1
NT 244.3
SA 102.0
A.C.T. 9.2
TAS 2.0
TOTAL 11 726.9
1977
NSW 212 052.2
WA 206 380.3
A.C.T. 26 007.4
SA 11 102.8
VIC 10 453.6
NT 4 544.6
QLD 2 461.9
TAS 818.8
TOTAL 473 821.6
1978 1977
NS W 2 148 436.7 NSW 155 853.2
VIC 176 969.6 QLD 56 176.2
SA 95 514.9 VIV 13 806.1
QLD 5 839.7 WA 1 602.8
NT 1 849.9 A.C.T. 1 264.5
WA 690.5 SA 49.9
A.C.T. 108.7 NT 43.8
TAS 0.3 TAS 2.9
TOTAL * grams 2 429 410.3 TOTAL 228 799.4
A228
CANNABIS 0 ID-
1978 1977
NSW 96 280.1 NSW 35 262.1
TAS 483.0 WA 435.3
QLD 473.4 QLD 295.0
VIC 471.0 VIC 41.4
SA 19.9 SA 35.8
NT 3.0 TAS 10.0
WA 0.8 NT 0.0**
A.C.T. - A.C.T. -
TOTAL 97 731.2 TOTAL 36 079.6
* grams
** trace only
INDIRECT INDICATORS OF THE EXTENT OF ILLEGAL IMPORTATION
In addition to seizure data, there are a number of indicators of a
less direct nature that can be used to estimate the extent of illegal
importation.
Firstly, some witnesses appearing before the Commission believed
that numbers of drug detections and prosecutions are an indication of
the importation rate. For example, the first Department of Business and Consumer Affairs submission to the Commission in November 1977 stated:
The more marked increase in detections over the last 5 years
cannot be fully attributed to the use of additinal manpower
resources or technological developments. The inference is that there has been an increase in the throughput of illicit
importations roughly proportionate to the increase in
de t e c t i o n .
(OT 39)
However, seizure statistics and the corresponding prosecutions show fluctuations that are not readily explained, and this indicator
certainly has to be looked at over a long period. For example,
Inspector D, H. Haswell, Officer-in-Charge of the Commonwealth Police Australia Crime Intelligence Centre, said that although Australia seemed to be becoming more self-supporting in the production of some drugs, a
fall in prosecutions for 1976 as against 1975 (597 compared with 840)
was not necessarily an indication that less drugs were imported into
Australia in 1976. He added that importation techniques had improved
and he thought that detection was becoming increasingly difficult (OT
162). According to the Commonwealth Police publication Drug Abuse in
Australia 19.77, 603 drug prosecutions were undertaken by the Narcotics Bureau in 1977. The corresponding figure for 1978, as supplied to the
Commission by the Commonwealth Police, was 451. Drug Abuse in Australia 1977, comments that the great majority of the charges were concerned
with illegal importation of drugs and illegal possession of illegally
imported drugs.
A229
D r M. C. Hall, Principal Res e a r c h Officer for the Commonwealth
Police, commenting on prosecution statistics in the draft tables for
Drug Abuse in A u s tralia 1976, pointed out the limitations imposed by the
original data from which the report was c o m p i l e d . The report relies
solely on data obtained from law enforcement agencies in Australia, and the report described only detected abuses of illicit drugs or illegal
involvement of p r o p rietary preparations and does not p urport to depict the whole of the national drug abuse p r o b l e m . He added that changes in
the figures mi g h t reflect resource limitations or circumstances of
man p o w e r use in specific law enforcement areas rather than changes in
illicit drug use in the community (OT 4046). Similar comments have been
included in editions of Drug Abuse in Australia since 1974.
Bearing these qualifications in mind, detected heroin importation offences reported in Drug Abuse in Australia for the years 1972 to 1977
were, respectively, 18, 10, 27, 11, 77, 78. The 1978 figure obtained by
the Commission from the Commonwealth Police is 25. However, as
discussed elsewhere, the Commission found Commonwealth Police seizure data for 1978 were inaccurate, and this casts serious doubt on the value
of the last f i g u r e . For all offences involving heroin (possess, import, use/administer, t r a f f i c , other), the figures for the period 1972 to 1978 reported in Drug Abuse in Australia w e r e , respectively, 149, 221, 329,
915, 1948, and 2346. The figure for 1978 obtained from the Commonwealth
Police was 3278. A detailed break-down of drug types related to offence
types revealed that charges concerned directly with illegal importation of drugs for the period 1974 to 1978 were 2.16 per c e n t , 0.56 per cent,
1.22 pe r c e n t , 0.82 per cent, and 0.79 per cent, respectively, of all
charges laid.
A second related indicator, according to Mr M. A. Besley, Secretary
of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs (0T 3 9 - - 4 0 ) , is the
increased frequency of detecting large importations of d r u g s . However, a senior Narcotics Bureau officer in Ne w South Wales did not agree that
heroin was being detected in larger a m o u n t s . He said (OT 9772D) there
was a rise in the number of seizures rather than in the size of
individual seizures. The Commission looked at the evidence relating to seized drugs in general and found that, except for cannabis oil, there
was no obvious trend towards larger amounts being imported in single
c o n s i g n m e n t s .
Nevertheless, some l a r g e , and even very l a r g e , seizures have been
made, bearing in mind the method of illegal importation attempted. For
e x a m p l e , in Western Australia in 1976 some 45 kg of Buddha sticks and
nearly 11 kg of heroin were seized in a motel in Broome after being
landed from a yacht.
On a number of occasions amounts of heroin carried on the person by
passengers arriving at Australian airports have been detected in the 1
kg to 2 kg r a n g e , or sometimes m o r e . In passengers' baggage, even
bigger quantities have been f o u n d . Mr M. A. Besley said in evidence in
November 1977 that on one occasion 4.5 kg of heroin were seized in the
baggage of two Thai nationals at Bangkok airport as they were about to
board a flight for Australia. In May 1978 approximately 9.9 kg of
A230
heroin were discovered b y a drug detector dog team in a passenger's
baggage at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.
In September 1979 approximately 13.5 kg of No. 3 heroin were seized
in the ship 'Kota B a l i â at F r e m a n t l e ; it was the largest heroin seizure
made in Australia up to that t i m e . The heroin was concealed in a
structural cavity in the ship. There is good reason for believing that
this was not the first time the ship had carried drugs to Australia, and
it has to be recognized that other ships may well be regularly used for
such trafficking.
In 1978 4.6 tonnes of cannabis tops were seized from the yacht
1A n o a ' at Port Laurienton in New South Wales and at Pocklington Reef off
the coast of Papua Ne w G u i n e a . Also in 1978, approximately 180 kg of
cannabis tops were taken from a crashed light aircraft near K a t h e r i n e .
Large seizures of cannabis resin in 1978 in Ne w South Wales were
approximately 1.9 tonnes (from a Campervan) 36.5 kg, 24.6 kg, 19.9 kg,
and 16.7 kg. In Victoria and South Australia respectively in 1978 large
seizures of 95.1 kg and 94.3 kg were made. In M a y 1976, 283 kg of
cannabis resin were discovered in Sydney in a consignment of canned
mixed pickles of Lebanese origin.
Cannabis oil seizures in 1978 included 12 kg, 11.2 kg, and 8.4 kg in
baggage at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, and 6.2 kg, 5 kg and 26.3
kg from carge examinations in Sydney. The largest seizure in 1977 was
25 kg, also in Sydney.
The biggest single seizure of cocaine, approximately 1.5 kg, was
made in 1976; h o w e v e r , this was believed to be an exceptional
circumstance involving an 'o p p o r t u n i s t '.
Another possible indirect indicator is the extent to which some
methods of importation have become more elaborate, involving higher
initial expenses and an extended scale of activities. Entrepreneurs are ready to outlay very large sums of money to cover overheads and to
i n v o l v e , and put at risk, valuable assets like ocean-going yachts and
aircraft in order to import greater quantities of d r u g s . Mr Besley said
that one drug syndicate had outlayed more than $750 000 to purchase a
sea-going vessel, a DC-3 aircraft, very sophisticated radio
communications and radio communications monitoring equipment, and
property in a remote part of Western Australia in order to parachute
some 1.5 tonnes of cannabis resin into the Indian Ocean and subsequently recover it at sea for shipment to Australia and onward d i s t r i b u t i o n .
Another g r o u p , one of many known to have made extensive use of
professional c o u r i e r s , was estimated to have imported some 800 to 1200
kg of high-grade cannabis in the form of Buddha sticks over a period of
three years. The couriers were carefully briefed on courses of action
to take if they were a p p r e h e n d e d , and provision was made for their legal representation, funds for b a i l , and false travel documents to facilitate their escape from Australia, if necessary (OT 4 1 - - 4 2 ) .
A231
It has to be pointed out, however, that detection of such large-
scale, elaborate operations are e x c e p t i o n a l . Most drug seizures
continue to be made through 1 c o n v e n t i o n a l ' air, sea and postal routes of
importation.
Mr D. J. Mitchell, Commander of the Narcotics Bureau Southern
Region, said that since 1974 a change had come over the whole drug
s c e n e . People were becoming more organised, they had accumulated vast
sums of money, and recruited persons as couriers who did not remotely
resemble a drug u s e r . Large sums of mo n e y were paid to these people for
bringing drugs into the country. Also, methods of concealment had
improved; some of the false-bottomed suitcases had been almost
impossible to detect (OT 2321). The points raised by Mr Besley and Mr
Mitchell are dealt with in more detail elsewhere in Part IV of this
R e p o r t---in Chapter 2 on methods of importation and in Chapter 7 on the
organised basis of drug related crime.
Another useful indicator of the extent of illegal importation is
derived from drug i n t e l l i g e n c e . Sources of information include users, traffickers and other drug o f f e n d e r s , drug casualties and established informers together with undercover agents. Information can be developed through appropriate follow-up inquiries and exchanges wi t h other law
enforcement agencies within Australia and in other countries. For
example, amounts of heroin or cannabis destined for Australia can be
estimated from reported arrests in overseas countries of Australians
caught in p o s session of drugs and from the v e r i f ication of frequent
visits to Australia by offenders prior to their a r r e s t . Mr H. Bates
said that in the five years up to 1977 more than 700 Australians were
arrested overseas for drug o f f e n c e s . Many of these were serious
trafficking offences as distinct from possession. There were such 133
arrests in 1973, 194 in 1974, 147 in 1975, 169 in 1976 and 74 up to
N o vember 1977. He added that he thought a high number of overseas
arrests of Australians on drug charges was not brought to the attention
of the Australian authorities (OT 321).
Fluctuations in availability and street prices of drugs are also
indicative of the supply situation in relation to demand. Intelligence from street surveys and undercover activities has shown that casual
users and abusers alike can readily procure drugs of all kinds. Until
1978 there had been no marked increase in prices other than those
consistent with domestic inflation. From this it can be deduced that
the level of importation is usually high enough to meet the demand, and
at most times to replace quantities of drugs seized, thus avoiding
fluctuations in availability. The p o s s ibility that street drugs are
diluted more during 'famines' in order to keep up supplies to users
cannot be ruled out since there is no routine detailed chemical
analysing of all seized drugs in Australia. Experience in the United
States does suggest that heroin is diluted according to the balance
between supply and demand (Drug Enforcement, vol. 4, No. 3, December
1977). There a r e , h o w e v e r , occasional fluctuations in supply, and when a drug is not available abusers are sometimes forced to seek medical
assistance. For e x a m p l e , some years ago in Sydney a large seizure of
heroin in the Chinese section of the community deprived the poorer
A232
addicts of s u p p l i e s , and for the first time two Chinese sought help from
a methadone program.
Finally, the number of known users can be taken as an indicator of
the availability of drugs or of quantities reaching the street markets provided certain weighting factors are taken into consideration. Some witnesses attempted to make estimates on that basis. For example, Mr J. A. Travers said he believed that the suggestion made by Senior Counsel
assisting the Commission that possibly 2000 people in Perth were
regularly using heroin was a 'fairly conservative estimate', and he
thought that each user would average about half a gram of pure heroin a
day. He agreed with Counsel:
...you would need almost one kilogram of pure heroin a day to
be available for a conservative estimate of 2000 users in
P e r t h .
(0T 626)
In the Northern Territory, Chief Inspector W. L. Goedegebuure said it was estimated that there were 500 heroin users in Darwin. He pointed
out:
Assuming this figure to be correct, and assuming that each
addict consumes 0.1 gramme of heroin daily, then a weekly
importation of 350 grammes of the drug is required simply to
maintain the present level of use.
(OT 5665)
In an article entitled 'Why the drugs get t h r o u g h ' , published in The Bulletin magazine of 6 August 1977, the author, Malcolm Turnbull, dealt with heroin importations into Australia based on information provided by David Deane-Spread and Ted Colmer, former agents of the Narcotics
Bureau. The article stated:
Last year it (the Narcotics Bureau) seized a little more than
15 kilograms of heroin. According to an American narcotics
agent in South East Asia, that is less than one Chinese
syndicate brings into Australia in any one week. It is just a
fraction of what is consumed in Australia.
The health authorities concede that there are about 10 000
heroin addicts in NSW. This is widely regarded by law
enforcement agencies involved in narcotics as a very
conservative estimate. To say that each addict uses an average of a gram of heroin a day is another very conservative
estimate. All the same it means that at least 10 kilograms of
heroin would be needed, every day for those 10 000 addicts in
NSW.
It is clear from these three examples that there is wide
disagreement about the quantities of heroin (in terms of the pure
A233
substance) consumed daily by users and addicts. F u r t h e r m o r e , the
numbers of users and addicts quoted in these examples are founded only
upon opinion.
A New South Wales Police submission to the NS W Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking in November 1978, and incorporated into the transcript of this Royal Com m i s s i o n , attempted a detailed analysis of the numbers of regular heroin users in that State on the basis of heroin users
participating in methadone maintenance p r o g r a m s . It was considered that there might be between 5000 and 20 000. The numbers of people accepting
rehabilitation will tend to be fewer when drugs are readily available. Health authorities may see this as a lessening of the problem but law
enforcement experience suggests otherwise. In any event, estimates
based on head counts of patients listed in a drug program compared with
numbers listed in previous years could be influenced by a variety of
factors and will tend to be misleading unless suitable statistical
weighting is applied.
Numbers of users can also be estimated from 1 visible casualties'.
This measure has to be used with caution because deaths could be caused
by adulteration of the drug rather than by o v e r d o s e , and dealers may be
tempted to adulterate h e r o i n , and possibly other d r u g s , when they become less readily available. Mr Besley said he had reservations about the
value of inferences drawn from 'visible casualties' (OT 4S--49) since
(a) not all drugs, cannabis for e x a m p l e , produce visible casualties; (b) not all casualties become known; (c) casualties often become known only when use has reached an advanced stage; and (d) only illicit users of
opiates coming to the attention of Commonwealth and State authorities are officially recorded statistically, and even figures relating to
these casualties do not reflect those receiving treatment privately. No figures are available to indicate the casualty rate from abuse of drugs such as cannabis p r o d u c t s , synthetics, and hallucinogens.
The New South Wales Police submission stated that an American
e x p e r t , Dr M. Baden, multiplies the numbers of users who die from the
effects of heroin and other narcotics by 100 to obtain a figure for the
numbers of addicts in New Y o r k . On a recent visit to Australia, Dr
Baden collected evidence that enabled him to suggest that at least 5000, and possibly as many as 7000, people were regularly using opiate
n a r c o t i c s .
As discussed in Part IV, Chapter 6, the Commission has estimated
that there could have been between 14 200 and 20 300 hard core heroin
addicts in Australia in 1978.
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) considers that in the USA a truly addicted heroin user would use 0.5 g of street
heroin a day but that for various reasons this consumption would
continue for only about 70 per cent of the time. According to the New
South Wales Police estimation, addicts may use an average of 1 g of
street heroin a day. The Commission used the NSW P olice average dosage
of 1 g per day together with the DEA's assumption that heroin addicts
only use heroin 70 per cent of the time, to estimate possible levels of
importation. These are considered below.
A234
POSSIBLE EXTENT OF ILLEGAL IMPORTATION
This Chapter shows that it is not possible to answer the question, 'What quantities of drugs are imported into Australia illegally?'
However, in attempting to estimate the number of hard core heroin
addicts, the Commission calculated that in 1978 between 900 kg and 1300 kg of pure heroin would have been required to support the estimated
14 200 to 20 300 addicts and provide for the quantities seized by law
enforcement agencies (see Part IV, Chapter 6).
Insufficient evidence was available to the Commission to allow a
similar detailed exercise to be attempted in connection with other drugs but it is possible to suggest some orders of magnitude as broad
indications. Taking the totals for 1978 for seizures of cannabis tops, cannabis resin, and cannabis oil arrived at in the tables prepared by
the Commission---namely:
cannabis tops cannabis resin cannabis oil
5 177 486.4 g
2 429 410.3 g
97 731.2 g
and multiplying these amounts by 10 (representing a 10 per cent
detection rate) and 6.7 (representing a 15 per cent detection rate) we
obtain the following ranges:
cannabis tops 3S--52 tonnes
cannabis resin 16--24 tonnes
cannabis oil 65S--977 kg
As these calculations have been made using only Narcotics Bureau
statistics they ignore any imported drugs seized by State authorities and hence understate the true position.
The significance of these calculations is uncertain but depends
largely on the assumption of a 10 to 15 per cent detection r a t e , which
may, in fact, be much too h i g h .
This Chapter demonstrates the continuing problems encountered by the Commission in attempting to make a reasonable estimate of the extent of the drug problem in Australia. The inadequacies of the available
statistics make it impossible to come to a reasonable estimate, as
opposed to a g u e s s , concerning the extent to which drugs are illegally
imported into Australia.
A further fundamental problem associated with the statistics upon which this Chapter attempts to base its estimates of the extent of
importation is the absence of consistent and uniform methods of
reporting.
A235
A236
Chapter 4 Exportation of Illegal Drugs
While several witnesses, both law enforcement officers and otherwise, voiced suspicions that some drugs, particularly cannabis, were illegally exported from Australia regularly and in quantity, the Commission
received little evidence of a concrete nature to confirm these
suspicions.
Although statistics provided by the Commonwealth Department of
Health show drugs are legally exported from Australia in quantity for a
variety of purposes, such as in the case of commercial exports by the
pharmaceutical industry, no statistics concerning illegal drug
exportations are available ---a fact explained by witnesses as being due firstly to the low incidence of detection of such exports and secondly
to the low priority Australian law enforcement agencies place on
detection of this sort of activity.
Most witnesses who discussed illegal exportation of drugs ---either potential or actual ---made a clear distinction between drugs grown or manufactured in Australia and those which might be exported from
Australia in the process of trans-shipment from one country to another.
Another question discussed in some detail was that of potential
targets for any Australian exportation, particularly in terms of what
some witnesses saw as an Australian--New Zealand 'Connection', a two-way flow of drugs between the two countries facilitated by the Australia-Â New Zealand Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement.
EXTENT OF ILLEGAL EXPORTATION
The attitude of the Narcotics Bureau concerning illegal exportation was expressed by Mr D . J. Mitchell, the Bureau's Southern Region
Commander, in the following terms:
The Bureau has come to accept, until the contrary is shown,
that the exportation of narcotics, whilst no doubt occurring, is a matter of minor concern, and one which does not rate
attention in its list of priorities...
(OT 2329)
...However should this (exportation) occur to any great degree, Australia would quickly gain intelligence of it through our
Overseas Liaison Section which would undoubtedly be informed. The situation has not yet occurred.
(OT 2333)
Mr M. A. Besley, Secretary of the Department of Business and
Consumer Affairs, indicated the reasons for this attitude on the first
day of Commission hearings. He said:
A237
Australia's geographical position does not lend itself to
exportation in that it is remote from the major illicit markets
of Europe and United States of America but is relatively close
to drug source countries in South-East Asia. It is therefore
more practical for the international drug trafficker to obtain his supplies at the cheaper prices available in source
countries and import them directly to the market place and so
only have to face the risk once of being detected.
In the case of the European and United Kingdom markets there
has been a tendency to effect large scale importations from
South-East Asia to countries such as the Netherlands where they are re-exported in small consignments to other countries within the region. The risks of detection after having successfully
made the first major importation are greatly reduced as the
origin of the consignment has been lost.
(OT 64)
However Mr Besley also pointed to the potential for Australia to be
used by international drug traffickers in their efforts to confuse law
enforcement agencies:
Australia has been used for the transit of illicit d r u g s ,
destined for either New Zealand or the United States of
America. The detected incidence of Australia being used for
this purpose is low. However because of its proximity to
source countries within South-East Asia it does provide
international traffickers with the opportunity to lose the
origin of the consignment.
(OT 64)
This view was also e x p r e s s e d , but in stronger t e r m s , in 'Operation
of Drug Treaties 1 9 7 6 1 , a report of the Australian Government to the
United Nations on the working of international treaties on narcotic
drugs for the calender year 1976. This report, compiled by the
Department of Business and Consumer Affairs in collaboration with
Commonwealth and State Health and Police authorities, described the
situation concerning trans-shipment as follows:
Indirect routes, particularly through Australia and Pacific Island countries, were often used by traffickers. Drugs
destined for USA via Fiji and New Caledonia were detected in
A u s t r a l i a .
(Open Exhibit 43, p 30)
Evidence from other sources quoted below also referred to
possibilities of Australia being used for trans-shipment of drugs by
Asian-based traffickers whose 't r a d i t i o n a l ' routes, particularly to the United States, were being disrupted by international law enforcement
e f f o r t s .
Most Australian Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers whom the Commission questioned about the extent of illegal exportation
A238
supported the views expressed by Bureau of Customs o f f i c e r s , although
some qualified their remarks by pointing out either that detection of
such exportation was a Commonwealth reponsibility or that they had no
firm evidence of such exportations. Several suggested that exportation generally was limited to that of drugs for the smuggler's own u s e .
Some users also supported the view that the extent of exportation
was limited. One confidential w i t n e s s , facing drug-related charges at the time of his e v i d e n c e , told the Commission of an approach made to him
in 1970 to 1 look a f t e r â the Australian section of a route to smuggle
heroin from Hong Kong via Australia to Los Angeles. Another witness
under sentence for illegal importation described to the Commission how he advised the Australian High Commission in Singapore about proposed
shipments of heroin through Perth to the United States in 1978. Another
user summed up the situation as he saw it in these words:
I don't see why anyone would want to send it out of the
country. They would try to get as much in as they can.
(CT)
Mr J. M. D a v i s , Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police, said that
while there was a possibility that illegally imported heroin might be
re-exported, he had no direct knowledge of it. Neither did he have any
knowledge of Australian-produced drugs being illegally exported. He
b e l i e v e d , h o w e v e r , that some illegally imported drugs which had been
detected could have been meant for trans-shipment overseas (OT 447--
4 8 B ) .
Several witnesses, as is discussed b e l o w , made reference to
detections in New South Wales involving drug exportations to New
Z e a l a n d . These detections had mainly been of relatively minor
quantities of cannabis being carried personally or being smuggled
through the mails by young Ne w Zealand nationals. Other witnesses who
referred to the actual or potential trans-shipment of illegal drugs
through Australia spoke of Sydney A irport and Sydney Harbour as main
transit points because of their being such big ports of entry and exit.
In V i c t o r i a , Detective Inspector G. D . Baker, Officer-in-Charge of the Victoria Police Drug Bureau, saw the domestic market as p a r a m o u n t .
The State Police believed illegally produced and trafficked drugs were for local consumption and very little, if any, was exported either
interstate or overseas (OT 2769A).
In Queensland, a senior Queensland State Police officer said in
confidential evidence that while it was 'highly s u s p e c t e d ' cannabis from Queensland was being exported to other States and overseas on a
substantial scale, 'no information has been received which would
substantiate this'. The officer pointed out that the State Police Drug
Squad was not geared to infiltrate overseas operations and consequently it had to rely on information supplied by I n t e r p o l .
A239
In South A u s t r a l i a , Customs officers and State Po l i c e officers
indicated that the State's isolation from main airline routes and sea
lanes p r e c l u d e d the likelihood of any large-scale export of d r u g s . Mr
H. C. B a r r i n g t o n , Officer-in-Charge of the Narcotics B u r e a u district
office in South A u s t r a l i a , said one instance of illegal e x p o r t a t i o n from the State had been c o n f i r m e d . Four members of a ship p l y i n g between
A u stralia and Ne w Zealand had been arrested by N e w Z e a l a n d authorities
in p o s s e s s i o n of small quantities of c a n n a b i s .
In W e s t e r n Australia, State police officers doubted drugs were being exported overseas from the State. One officer pointed out that although
drugs p a s s e d through the State they were believed g e n e r a l l y to be only
in transit to other States. One officer in confidential s ession said
the one case of exportation he knew of in 1977 involved a w o m a n en route
to London carrying methadone and h e r o i n . ' She was a user and carrying
it for her use,' he added.
In Tasmania, Inspector T. W. Cashion, O f f i c e r - i n - C h a r g e of the
Tasmanian Drug Bureau, considered that illegal e x p o rtation of drugs from the State in an international sense was 'highly i m p r o b a b l e ' (OT 1978).
Mr R. J. Beattie, a former Collector of Customs for Tasmania, was of a
similar view, but also pointed out that a number of v e s s e l s such as
fishing vessels operated in Tasmanian waters and there were no controls over the sailings of these vessels (OT 1160).
In the No r t h e r n Territory, Chief Inspector W. L. G o e d e g e b u u r e of the Northern Ter r i t o r y Police said there was no knowledge w i t h i n the
Territory Police of illegal exportation of drugs (OT 5666).
Australian-produced Exports
Virtually all evidence concerning possible illegal e x p o r t a t i o n of Australian-produced drugs centred on cannabis in leaf form. When
discussing the potential for illegal e x p o r t , in a C o m m i s s i o n h e a r i n g ,
Narcotics Bureau Commissioner Mr H. Bates agreed that all indications
were that v i rtually all illicit drugs in Australia other than cannabis
were imported. He poi n t e d out that with the exception of cannabis,
known illicit p r o d u c t i o n of drugs was limited to some localised
manufacture on occasions of amphetamine and an occasional LSD 'f a c t o r y ' and one instance of heroin manufacture (OT 3 3 1 - - 3 2 ) .
Mr Besley on the first day of hearings also specifically r eferred to
suggestions that Australian-grown cannabis was being exported:
Most of these suggestions have been based on theories (local
p r o d u c t i o n is greater than local needs) rather than on reliable intelligence. However as the m a jority of the department's
enforcement efforts are directed towards drug importations
there is a lack of intelligence to support or refute these
s u g g e s t i o n s .
A240
W h i l s t it can be accepted that the export of cannabis in
c o m m e r c i a l quantities from Australia to Ne w Zealand would run
lit t l e risk of detection other factors need to be considered in
a s s e s s i n g the feasibility of such a suggestion.
(OT 66)
W h e n M r H. Bates was asked about the possibility of a surplus of
A u s t r a l i a n - p r o d u c e d cannabis, he replied:
It is always a possibility, although I think one of the things
t h a t needs to be considered is that the quantity of imported
can n a b i s has not risen as significantly over the last couple of y e a r s---that is the seizures that we have m a d e--- and whether
t h a t is because we have become less efficient or whether a lot
of the market is now being supplied by locally grown cannabis
as distinct from the imported cannabis.
W e have not seen, for instance, any substantial quantities of
ca n n a b i s being exported out of South Africa over the last
c o u p l e of y e a r s , but three to four years ago we were getting
s u b s tantial quantities of cannabis from South Africa.
(OT 333)
W h e n a g a i n asked about the possibility of cannabis exportation,
du r i n g C o m m i s s i o n hearings in September 1978, Mr Bates said a meeting of heads of n a rcotics law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region which a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from the United States had attended as an observer had
i n d i c a t e d there was no evidence from any of the countries involved to
sug g e s t t h e r e was any exportation of cannabis from Australia in
s i g n i f i c a n t quantities.
Mr Bates, Mr Besley and several other witnesses from the Department
of B u s i n e s s and Consumer Affairs agreed there had been instances of
d r u g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y ca n n a b i s , being exported from Australia to New
Z e a l a n d a n d many witnesses made reference to the difficulties in
c o n t r o l l i n g the passenger flow between the two countries because of the A u s t r a l i a - - N e w Zealand Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement. In the main,
however, these witnesses pointed out that the exportations detected had b e e n sm a l l quantities carried for personal use (OT 65, OT 332).
Some e vidence from witnesses other than those from the Department of B u s i n e s s an d Consumer Affairs indicated their belief that exportation of can n a b i s to New Zealand was perhaps more widespread than Customs
o f f i c e r s thought. Among these witnesses was a senior officer of the
Q u e e n s l a n d State Police Drug Squad who said in confidential evidence
th a t p e r s o n a l police contacts in Auckland and Wellington had told him
' a l o t ' o f cannabis came from Australia.
'Transit' Exportation
M a n y of the witnesses who spoke of Australia being used as a transit
c o u n t r y b y international drug traffickers spoke of the potential for
A2A 1
this type of activity rather than producing evidence of a substantive
nature of its actual occurrence. However some samples of detection of
this type of international trafficking were quoted.
Much of the evidence concerning the potential for 'transit' activity focussed on the p r oximity of Australia to drug-producing areas such as
the South-East Asian Golden Triangle and the known capability of
international traffickers to change and diversify trafficking routes. Apart from the evidence from Mr Besley and other Department of Business
and Consumer Affairs sources already quoted, other witnesses also saw a potential for Australia not only becoming a bigger m arket for heroin
traffickers in terms of consumption but also as 'a pipe-line' to
circumvent United States Drug Enforcement A dministration efforts to
bl o c k illegal opium and heroin shipments into the United States from
A s i a .
Witnesses who referred to the possibility of Australia being exposed to much more attention from Asian heroin traffickers following the
disruption of 't r a d i t i o n a l ' markets and routes included Dr B. A. H e x e d , Exe c u t i v e Director of the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse, author and lecturer on South-East Asian Affairs Dr A. W. McCoy (OT 18542) and
A u s t r a l i a n journalist and television producer M r P. F. Burgess (OT
1 1 9 0 1 - - 0 2 ) . One of the more specific references made to the possibility
of Australia being used as a transit country for international
trafficking was that by Mr N. R. Kelly, Executive Director of the
Aus t r a l i a n Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. He s a i d :
Dr J. Densen Gerber, a world expert in drug problems warned
Australia during her talks in April (1978) that this country
had been selected by Asian illegal syndicates to become the
corridor as controls increased in other countries.
(OT 12623)
The 1971 report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking
and Drug Abuse gave a similar warning:
...if the measures being taken to combat drug trafficking in
the United States are successful the risk to Australia is
increased by the possibility of Australia becoming a
distribution base for other markets.
(Open Exhibit 19, p .29)
Bureau of Customs evidence concerning actual seizure of drugs
apparently passing through Australia agreed that except for some
isolated cases---including one large seizure of cannabis in a freighted yacht enroute from Bangkok to the United S t a t e s---most drugs seized were destined for New Zealand. Mr H. Bates said:
We certainly have had instances of transhipment through
Australia, certainly to New Zealand on a greater number of
occasions than to countries like A m e r i c a .
(OT 334)
A242
In his evidence concerning illegal exportation, Mr D. J. Mitchell of the Narcotics Bureau said there had been odd incidents where it was
suspected Aus t r a l i a n ports had been used as transit for drugs bound for
the United States, such as the case of an American citizen arriving in
Australia for 'a holiday' and staying only one day before returning
h o m e . H o w e v e r , he added that 'these incidents are few and rarely
detected' (OT 2329). Mr Mitchell went on to make the point that while
Australia's being a 'jumping-off' point for smuggling into the United
States was a possibility, he believed it did not happen at p r e s e n t . He
a d d e d :
You have to go through two Customs screens to get back to
America and it would mean that you would be in double jeopardy.
The commodity would be cheaper in America than it could be sold
for h e r e . These people are only in it for money.
(OT 2330)
Another Narcotics Bureau officer in confidential session referred to one specific incident which the Bureau believed could have involved
't r a n s i t ' smuggling on an organised scale to New Zealand using couriers:
...We have confirmed that one of t h e ... couriers transitted
Australia en route to New Zealand carrying false-sided
suitcases packed with compressed 'Thai s t i c k ' c a n n a b i s . There is every reason to believe that this activity would not be
isolated. In general at the present time it would not be
economic, and would be risky to transit drug laden cargo
through Australia to other world ports. However such activity
has been identified...
Customs passenger control in Sydney are alert to this
possibility. The possibility of drug exports or transits from
Australia is i d e n t i f i e d . However existing intelligence
indicates that this is of a low o r d e r .
(CT)
METHODS OF EXPORTATION
Evidence concerning methods of illegal exportation of dr u g s---at
least evidence concerning incidents of actual detection---indicated that methods used were substantially the same as the importation methods
described in Chapter 2 of this Part of the R e p o r t . Some witnesses felt
that would-be illegal exporters might tend not to take as much care in
their activities because of the belief that illegal exportation was
easier to achieve than illegal impo r t a t i o n . One such witness was Mr D.
J. Mitchell of the Narcotics Bureau. During the course of his
explanation of reasons why it was believed little exportation occurred
he said:
There has been little detection of the exportation of drugs
from Australia and those that have be e n have shown little
concern for c o n c e a l m e n t .
A243
Reliance seemingly is placed upon the lack of Customs vigilance on o utgoing p a s s e n g e r s , baggage and c a r g o .
(OT 2332--33)
Known incidents of illegal exportation such as those already quoted have included personal exportation of heroin and cannabis in various
forms either on the person or in baggage and exportation of cannabis in
various forms either by mail or in c a r g o .
A senior Narcotics Bureau officer described in confidential session how a Customs Preventive Officer carrying out routine searches in Sydney in February 1976 discovered a large quantity of cannabis secreted in the flotation areas of a Tempest class yacht crated as deck cargo from
Bangkok in the M V Straat C l a r e n c e . The yacht had apparently been
consigned by a person in Bangkok to a Sydney a d d r e s s . A Customs agent
whom Narcotics Bureau officers established had no criminal connection with the importation of the yacht received instructions from a person in the United States with the same name as the consignor to ship the yacht
to a yacht club in San F r a n c i s c o . This was done after Customs officers
removed 164 kg of cannabis from the yacht and re-crated it. After
liaison b etween the Narcotics Bureau and the United States Drug
Enforcement Administration, the suspect was taken into custody in the
United States and further amounts of cannabis left aboard the yacht by
Australian officers were seized.
A Narcotics Bureau officer in New South Wales said in confidential
session he thought cannabis had been illegally exported to the United
States in refrigerated c a r g o , and the money from the exports
subsequently 'l a u n d e r e d ' by a diplomat taking the money overseas and
exchanging it for d i a m o n d s .
GENERAL
Whilst the evidence disclosed relatively little exportation of drugs from Australia, the considerations in the conclusions expressed in
Chapter 2, dealing with methods of importation, are equally applicable.
A244
Chapter 5 Trafficking in Illegal Drugs
The term 'trafficking' has broad connotations and is used generally to
describe the movement of drugs from producer to user. While this
Chapter deals essentially with trafficking within Australia and illegal importation of drugs has already been discussed in earlier Chapters,
some aspects of this importation are referred to here. Evidence clearly shows the two drugs most trafficked in Australia ---cannabis and
heroin ---are also the drugs most regularly imported, and that
importations of any scale or regularity would be undertaken by
individuals or groups who have made prior marketing arrangements within Australia.
The Commission was aware that much of the evidence received on this
subject needed to be treated with reservation. Drug trafficking is,
above all, an illegal activity and by its nature given to secrecy.
Evidence in the main came from two sources: law enforcement
officers and drug users and/or dealers. The law enforcement officers
relied on drug offenders and informants for much of their information.
On the other h a n d , although a large number of users and dealers gave
evidence, the Commission found the reliability of this evidence was
often questionable. Sometimes it appeared to be more imagination or
speculation than a factual account of actual events. At other times
witnesses appeared less than candid.
Evidence which could be substantiated however indicated certain
general characteristics of illegal drug distribution within Australia. These general characteristics are:
* Distribution arrangements can vary considerably, but in general the
two most common arrangements were those described by Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers as the 1 straight line'
arrangement and the 1 pyramid' arrangement.
* In a 'straight line1 arrangement the trafficker (who can also be the
importer or, in the case of cannabis, the grower) is often a user
selling direct to other use r s .
* The 1 pyramid' arrangement is much more complex and can involve many
more people. These range from individuals or small groups of
financiers, importers or growers at the apex of the pyramid, through a group of 'middle men' or 'wholesalers' to perhaps lower-level
wholesalers and then to a larger number of 'retailers' or 'street
dealers' who make the actual sales to use r s . This type of
arrangement often includes couriers used to either import the drug or to transport it within Australia. *
* In pyramid trafficking, the amount of drug involved in individual transactions decreases and the market value increases in the case of heroin dramatically ---as the drug moves down the trafficking
pyramid to the user.
A245
* While traffickers in straight line arrangements might generally seek a profit only sufficient to support their own drug usage,
traffickers involved in the middle and upper levels of a pyramid
arrangement se e k---and obtain---very substantial profits.
DRUGS TRAFFICKED
Heroin and Other Opiates
Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers indicated in their evidence that while very little or virtually no opium or morphine is
trafficked in Australia except within Asian ethnic communities, heroin in both Grade No. 3 and Grade No. 4 forms is imported and trafficked in
q u a n t i t y .
No. 3 heroin is a granular form of the drug. It is grey, brown,
purple or beige in colour and is commonly referred to as 'rocks'. No. 4
is a white powder in its pure form. The prevalence of either form of
heroin in Australia varies. NSW police officers in m i d - 1979 said that
at that time, 90 per cent of the heroin being trafficked in Sydney was
No. 4. Evidence received from another authoritative source shortly
after suggested the ratio of No. 3 and No. 4 heroin available in Sydney
was then one to o n e .
Cannabis
Evidence clearly showed cannabis was the drug most trafficked in
Australia in terms of volume. References were made to different
forms---the leaf form known as marihuana or Indian h e m p , cannabis resin
(hashish), and cannabis oil. Cannabis in the form of Buddha sticks was
also a variety favoured by users.
Bureau of Customs officers indicated cannabis oil had been imported in increasing quantities in recent years and New South Wales Police
evidence made the point in August 1979 that cannabis or 'hash' oil was
being trafficked in Sydney at that time in quantities never before
e x p e r i e n c e d .
No evidence was received to suggest cannabis in resin or oil form
was being p r oduced in Australia. However considerable evidence was
received concerning the trafficking of cannabis grown in NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.
While early evidence in Commission hearings often referred to users preferring Buddha sticks (cannabis tops) imported into Australia over similar products made in A u s t r a l i a , a senior law enforcement officer
said in confidential evidence in 1979:
Buddha sticks as explained by the drug user refer to sticks
wh i c h are made outside Australia and Grass sticks refer to the
locally made product. Until recently Buddha sticks were
A246
preferred over Grass sticks due to their better quality but
this is generally not the case at present if we refer to the
smaller amounts.
The easiest wa y to detect Buddha sticks from Grass sticks is
that Buddha sticks will have the Bamboo centre pin or stick
wi t h Indian Hemp attached being wrapped or entwined by a very
fine bamboo string or rope, whilst Grass sticks will have the
bamboo pin or a wooden pin and the grass will be wrapped to
that pin b y cotton or very fine nylon line such as fishing
l i n e .
C onsumer resistance is virtually negligible now when we talk
about the smaller amounts of both forms of sticks as compared
to each other as it has been found, and common knowledge within
the drug scene, that Buddha sticks can have the physical
appearance of Grass sticks and that Grass sticks can be as good
a product as any Buddha stick tried by the user on prior
o c c a s i o n s .
(CT)
Other Drugs
The b u l k of evidence received by the Commission about prices
obtained, me t h o d s used and people involved in d r u g trafficking in
Aus t r a l i a referred m a i n l y to cannabis and heroin. This evidence is
discussed in detail in the following sections of this Chapter.
Some evidence however, also referred to trafficking in other drugs, albeit in smaller amounts, generally by means of the above-mentioned
'straight line' arrangement and mainly involving users. This evidence, including indications of prices, packaging arrangements and traffickable amounts of these drugs is outlined below for convenience sake.
The Commission n o t e d that w h i l e the methods and extent of trafficking in these drugs might appear to differ at present fr o m those involving
cannabis and heroin, there was no reason to believe that those
traffickers who were ma i n l y motivated by greed would not traffic in any
drug if 'market conditions' appeared sufficiently attractive.
Other drugs which witnesses said were trafficked to at least some
degree included hallucinogens, methaqualone (Ma n d r a x ) , barbiturates, amphetamines, amyl nitrite and methadone.
Most evidence suggested that trafficking in hallucinogenic drugs was on a relatively small scale compared with heroin and cannabis. While
lysergic acid (LSD) was prevalent in the late 1960s and early 1970s,
little of this drug had been detected in recent years. Evidence
suggested the hallucinogen most commonly trafficked in recent times has b e e n 4-Bromo-2, 5-dimethoxyamphetamine (DMA) which many people believe to be, or refer to, as LSD or 'acid'. The unit t r a fficked---known as a
'tab', 'ticket' or 'Italian t i l e '---is about a quarter inch square (37
square mm) in size and sells on the illicit mar k e t for about $6 but
sometimes up to $8 each. 'Bulk' transactions involving 1000 or more
A247
'tabs' have been known with the prices decreasing to $2.50 or as low as
40 cents each.
Evidence indicated that m e t h a q u a l o n e , particularly in the form of
Mandrax, and barbiturates such as Seconal and Tuinal are illegally used and trafficked. The drugs are often obtained from pharmacies either by
theft or by legitimate or false prescription. Illicit buyers of the
drugs ge n e r a l l y do so only for themselves or for friends. 'S t r e e t '
prices for Ma n d r a x tablets quoted by law enforcement officers from
several States and Territories in 1979 ranged from 50 cents to $5 a 5mg
tablet, d e pending on the quantity bought. Prices of $2 to $5 per
capsule were quoted for Seconal or Tuinal, although evidence in
confidential session indicated that users of these barbiturates could pa y much higher prices if really 'hung o u t ' for the d r u g . Witnesses
suggested barbiturate users are often the most desperate of drug buyers.
Law enforcement officers from all States and Territories agreed
there has been virtually no regular or systematic trafficking in
amphetamines or cocaine. These officers said that while it is true at
present cocaine is a very fashionable drug among certain 'trendy'
sections of society, such as those who travel overseas frequently, there are no direct and continuous links with the main production areas of
South America and people importing the drug do so for their own use or
the use of friends. A NS W Police Drug Squad officer in confidential
evidence poi n t e d out that cocaine is an expensive drug in Sydney.
Prices could range from $100 to $300 for 0.5 grams and $150 to $400 per
gram, he said.
N S W Police indicated that amyl nitrite had recently appeared on the
Sydney illegal drug m a r k e t . Witnesses commented that usage of amyl
nitrite was increasing among young people in Sydney (although not
apparently in country or other N S W city areas). Illegal use of amyl
nitrite was not reported by law enforcement officers from any other
State or Territory. The d r u g , a liquid, which could be made by
pharmaceutical manufacturers for $20 to $30 a half-litre or litre
bottle, was sold in pharmacies for $5 a bottle containing one to 10
millilitres. The latter sold illicitly on the streets for up to $15 a
bottle.
Confidential evidence from drug users indicated some trafficking
also occurred in m e t h a d o n e , the synthetic narcotic dispensed to narcotic addicts. One user described a system of obtaining methadone for sale by
switching an empty bottle for the bottle containing methadone received at a clinic so as to deceive the person supervising the dispensing.
'CUTTING' and PACKAGING
While large-scale trafficking of virtually any drug is characterised by a progressive reduction in the size of the unit trafficked and a
progressive increase in the value of that unit as the drug moves through
the different levels of trafficking, the trafficking of some drugs is
also characterised by adulteration or 'c u t t i n g ' of the drug.
A248
The incidence of this 1 c u t t i n g ' and the form of packaging the drug
varies from drug to drug. Evidence indicated that while cannabis in its
various forms can and is 'cut' by Australian drug traffickers, this
usually occurs in circumstances where a trafficker is trying to cheat or 'rip off' a user and is not generally part of regular dealer-user
relationships. On the other hand, 'cutting' is an integral part of
heroin trafficking.
He r o i n
Most evidence concerning heroin agreed with the comments made in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs' submission to the
Commission in D e cember 1977 which said:
The importer of quantities of heroin exceeding one kilo by
preference looks to place these consignments in lots of not
less than 500 g r a m s . Dependent on the type and scale of
importer, and often the trafficker/s with whom he has
established relationships, the drugs m a y be first adulterated at the point of importation or passed to the first level
distributor prior to this taking place. This initial 'cutting' will both increase bulk and represents the first step in the
chain of adulteration which sees heroin reduced in strength
from b etween 30%--60% for No. 3 and 70%--90% in the case of
No. 4 to, in some instances, less than 10% purity in both forms
by the time it reaches the user.
(0T 83--83A)
Heroin is 'cut' by mixing it with a substance of like a p p e a r a n c e ,
such as glucose, powdered milk, aspirin, starch, talc or, as some
witnesses testified, even cement p o w d e r .In one case brought to the
attention of the Commission, traffickers who were believed to have been importing heroin in letters for two years from Malta had used a domestic
food mixer to 'cut' the heroin after its importation.
The extent of adulteration, evidence i n d i c a t e d , can va r y widely and for many reasons, such as the purity of the drug at time of m a n u f a c t u r e ,
the type of heroin involved, the prevailing levels of supply, the
âbusiness ethics' of traffickers a n d , some evidence suggested, the skill
of the 'c u t t e r ' .
The process can be done in one operation or, as most witnesses
assumed, progressively, with traffickers at various levels repeating the
p r o c e s s .
Although an addict will buy either No. 3 'rocks' or No. 4 powder,
mo s t addicts prefer 'rocks'. The colouration of 'rocks' gives at least
some visual indication of purity, but in the case of No. 4 the only
indication of strength (diamorphine concentration) is by consumption. No. 4 heroin brings the attendant risk of either being 'ripped off' by
being sold low purity heroin or suffering an overdose, perhaps even a
fatal one, because an unskilled or careless 'cutter' has prepared a
A249
dosage with an abnormally high content of d i a m o r p h i n e . Some
confidential e vidence from law enforcement officers in 1979 suggested an increasing incidence of traffickers pulverising 'rocks' into powder to increase its potential for 'cutting'.
Al t h o u g h no direct evidence of 'cutting' heroin in an organised or
regular way in Australia was received b y the Commission, most witnesses agreed with the above comments indicating Australian traffickers
routinely cut heroin. Data available on level of purity of drugs seized
by law enforcement officers supported this.
Given that No. 3 or No. 4 heroin has been seized with levels of
pu r i t y well above even the highest consumption levels of purity
m e n tioned by users, there seems little doubt that heroin is often 'cut'
at least once or twice in Australia. Evidence from law enforcement
officers included a theoretical example of a shipment of heroin being
'cut' to increase its original weight eight and one-half times.
Several users in confidential evidence referred to their despair
when in their desperation for heroin they had been cheated into
accepting heroin of very low purity compared with what they believed was an optimal pu r i t y of 40 to 50 per cent. Evidence varied widely,
however, on what was considered an acceptable level of purity and there
was considerable doubt as to whether ma n y users themselves knew what
level of purity was optimal. Other factors, such as the weight of the
individual package or 'deal' also need to be considered.
E vidence from law enforcement officers indicated that the purity of heroin, part i c u l a r l y that sold at the street level, varied considerably around Australia. For example, the first Department of Business and
Consumer Affairs submission to the Commission in November 1977 referred to Customs officers seizing heroin at various places in Australia of
only 5 pe r cent purity. N S W police officers suggested 10 per cent was
an acceptable and traffickable level of purity in the streets of Sydney. A V i ctorian Drug Bureau officer indicated that the purity of the street
heroin in that State was generally in the range of 3 to 15 per cent. A
Queensland Drug Squad officer considered the heroin in that State would be cut to 10 to 15 per cent. Northern Territory Police commented that
in 1977 street heroin was about 30 to 50 per cent pure but this had
dropped to as low as one per cent in May 1979. In September 1979,
A.C.T. Police suggested that it would average out at approximately 40 to 50 per cent pure heroin.
These estimates were substantiated by the results of analyses of the heroin seized b y law enforcement officers. In particular, evidence was received in August 1979 that although levels of p urity of those seizures of heroin which had actually be e n analysed varied from zero to 90 per
cent, the m a jority had been between zero and 30 per cent and more than
one third had been between 10 and 20 per cent pure. 'Zero per cent
pure' referred to instances where someone in a trafficking chain had
perpetrated a 'rip-off', a practice which the evidence of most users
A250
indicated was a constant hazard and the reason why most users preferred
to buy from known regular d e a l e r s .
Several users and user/dealers told of buying heroin of sufficient
purity for them to 'cut' the drug t h e m s e l v e s , either for their own use
over a period of time or to sell some to other u s e r s .
Alt h o u g h some seizures of heroin imported into Australia have been
in amounts of 10 kg and m o r e , evidence concerning trafficking at the
street level showed sales are carried out in units as small as a
fraction of a gram. The November 1977 Department of Business and
Consumer Affairs submission said that for some years heroin was most
commonly sold to users in pharmaceutical 00 size capsules but that
recently a greater use had been made of aluminium foil for p a c k a g i n g .
The submission added:
Weights as low as 0.1 grams are commonly experienced at this
level of trafficking.
(OT 83B)
Several witnesses supported the view that the introduction of the
aluminium foil sachet had dramatically decreased the quantity of heroin in street sale units. Previously 14 grams (0.5 ounce) had made up 50 to
60 gelatin c a p s u l e s , but the same quantity was often packaged in 1978
into 100 aluminium foil sachets, one witness said.
Evidence indicated that the preferred form of packaging heroin also varied from State to State. In NSW, both Customs officers and police
officers agreed that in mid-1979 gelatin capsules (either in the 00 size or the smaller 0 size capsule) were rarely detected in Sydney---most
dealers used the aluminium foil sachets. In Victoria, however, capsules were still being widely u s e d . In Queensland, both capsules and
aluminium foil sachets were frequently u s e d .
With the decrease in the use of c a p s u l e s , in at least some States,
two new t e r m s-the 'street g r a m ' and the 'half street g r a m 1-----were
introduced to describe the quantities p u r c h a s e d . Witnesses commented that some addicts referred to the intensity of their habit in terms of
these street g r a m s , for example a 'two street gram a d a y ' h a b i t .
Evidence indicated that the actual weight of these units could vary considerably. Bureau of Customs evidence referred to a half street gram containing an actual weight of between 0.2 and 0.6 grams, and a street
gr a m as having an actual weight of between 0.6 and 1.2 grams . On the
other hand, confidential evidence from the N S W Police in August 1979
defined a street gram as being 0.4 grams actual weight and a half street
gram as being 0.2 grams actual weight.
A251
Evidence also referred to a 'bag' as being a commonly trafficked
amount at street level. A 'bag' was generally about 14.2 grams actual
w e i g h t .
Some witnesses suggested the reduction in the size of individual
'deals' being trafficked had been a device for increasing the cost of
heroin to u s e r s . Instead of simply increasing the price of a 'deal',
traffickers had reduced the quantity of the deal---either in terms of
actual weight or, in some c a s e s , the level of p u r i t y---but had made no
corresponding reduction in price.
As well as the reasons quoted a b o v e , some users and dealers gave
other reasons for 'cu t t i n g ' and the various methods of packaging. One
u s e r , for e x a m p l e , believed there was an element of merchandising
psychology in providing a user with something more than a speck of white
powder for the considerable amount of money paid.
H o w e v e r , the predominant and over-riding reason given was a simple on e---to make as much profit as possible from each transaction, either
because of greed or the continuing need of traffickers to finance their
own habit.
Cannabis
As previously mentioned, 'c u t t i n g ' of cannabis in its various forms does occur, although most witnesses agreed that it did not occur to
anything like the same degree as wi t h heroin. Reasons given for this
lack of 'cutting' were n u m e r o u s , but included the availability of the
d r u g , the difference in the degree of dependency of users (and therefore the ability of traffickers to dictate market t e r m s ) , the greater ease
with which users could detect adulteration and the lower profit margins, at least in terms of unit cost.
Cannabis in leaf form can be adulterated in two ways: by the
introduction of a poorer quality crop or strain of cannabis (with a low
THC content) or, in the case of cannabis flowering tops, by mixing the
tops with parts of the plant with a lower THC content. In some
instances other vegetable matter, such as grass clippings or lucerne, is introduced, but examples of this cited to the Commission were generally in the context of attempts to deceive buyers.
In the case of resin, street prices quoted by State police officers
in confidential evidence indicated separate market categories had been established for 'top quality' resin coming from some countries and 'poor quality' resin coming from other countries where the resin might be
mixed with vegetable matter including herbs.
Cannabis oil can be 'cut' by the addition of treacle or alcohol such
as ethanol. Some evidence was received that seizures at point of
A252
importation have contained approximately 10 to 20 per cent e t h a n o l .
Confidential evidence in mid-August 1979 indicated that oil being sold at street level at that time was not being cut to any high degree. A
senior State police officer believed this could be due to an abundance
of oil being available at the time. He also said that, in general,
purchasers could usually detect adulteration.
With the exception of cannabis oil, individual quantities of
cannabis trafficked in Australia at wholesale levels are obviously much greater than in the case of heroin. While individual seizures of heroin
have been recorded up to 13.5 kg, seizures of cannabis tops and cannabis
resin have been recorded as high as 4.6 tonnes and 1.9 tonnes
respectively.
Cannabis in leaf form other than flowering tops is often sold to
users in lots ranging from 100 lb (45.4 kg) to 'deals' of about one
ounce (28 grams). One law enforcement officer quoted a case of police
overhearing negotiations for regular supply of 1000 lb (454 kg) lots.
Trafficking in cannabis tops is carried out in units of sticks---the n a m e , as explained in evidence quoted above, used to describe both
imported and A u s tralian cannabis tops. The size and weight of an
individual stick varies considerably, from as much as one gram to 9
grams. Prices quoted by law enforcement officers referred to
trafficking in lots of 10 000 or more sticks do w n to single sticks.
These prices varied from less than $3 a stick for lots of 10 000 to $12
to $20 for one stick, depending on size, quantity and general
availability.
While amounts of cannabis resin trafficked at the wholesale level
are obviously as high as multiples of 100 kg, evidence from law
enforcement officers indicated that common street trafficking amounts were in lots of five ounces (142 grams), in the case of poorer quality
resin, to lots of 28 grams and to 'deals' of one gram or m o r e , depending
on q u a l i t y . A one ounce (28 gram) block of best quality resin might be
made into 20 'deals' but an equal amount of poor quality resin might
ma k e only 10 'deals'.
Cannabis oil is generally sold at street level in units of one ounce
(28 grams) or in 'caps' (capsules) of about one g r a m . While cannabis
leaf is often packaged in plastic b a g s , cannabis oil can be contained in
sealed plastic bags (generally in larger amounts at the wholesale
level), in glass vials (generally for one ounce lots) or pharmaceutical 00 size c a p s u l e s . Evidence from law enforcement officers suggested
street transactions in 1979 could be in lots of up to 50 'caps'.
PRICES
The Commission sought evidence from all Commonwealth, State and
Territory law enforcement bodies concerning illegal drug prices,
p a r t i cularly for heroin and cannabis. It did so in an attempt to
A253
establish not only current prices and profit margins but also any
significant m o v ements which might have occurred in recent years.
The results of evidence given about prices in the States and
Territories are set out in Tables IV.7 and I V . 8 . headed 'Illegal Drug
Prices in Australia, 1977' and 'Illegal Drug Prices in Australia
1978/79' respectively. The 1977 tabulation is based on data in an
illicit drug price schedule submitted in evidence by the Commonwealth
Police (Open E xhibit 45) in 1977. The 1978/79 tabulation is based on
evidence received from each of the State and Territory police forces in
1978 and 1979.
The C o m mission publishes these tabulations mainly to indicate the
prices wh i c h law enforcement officers throughout Australia said were being paid b y users of heroin and cannabis---in other words, the amount
of money a user needed to buy a 'deal', irrespective of quality. It
became apparent during compilation of these prices and consideration of other evidence already outlined that any simple or conclusive comparison of prices on a regional basis or indeed from one period to another was
i m p o s s i b l e .
In some cases even the terminology used to describe the unit
trafficked varied from one source to another. In other cases varying
quality was involved. Dr M. Hall, Principal Research Officer of the
Commonwealth Police, pointed out in his evidence of February 1978 that
prices can also be influenced by availability, demand, and the quality
of individual transactions (OT 4076). Growing seasons and police
seizures are also factors, police witnesses said.
The Commission also received lists of both overseas and local prices from the Bureau of Customs in 1977 and in August 1979. The Commission
has used this information, supplemented by information from New South
Wales Police witnesses also received in August 1979 to compile the list
of wholesale and retail prices shown in Table IV.9 and headed 'Wholesale and Retail Illegal Drug Prices, 1977 and 1 9 7 9 1.
Again, the prices quoted by the two sources varied considerably in
some instances and the Commission was aware that any assumptions drawn
from them might not be a true reflection of the real situation at any
given time. Some observations, h o w e v e r , are recorded below.
Heroin
Some law enforcement officers suggested that a drought and crop
substitution programs in the 'Golden T r i a n g l e ' opium growing areas of
Burma and Thailand had caused very big price increases at the production end of the heroin distribution chain such as at Chiang Mai in Thailand
(OT 21536). This would appear to have been reflected in corresponding
increases in Bangkok and in Australia at the importing level.
A254
Table IV.8
Illegal Drug Prices in Australia 1978/79
Drug
N e w South Wales
V i c t o r i a
Q u e e n s - South
land A u s t r a l i a
W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a
T a s m a n i a
N o r t h e r n
T e r r i t o r y
A u s t r a l i a n Capital T e r r itory
$ s
Heroin
1 oz. (a) 2400-3000 2300
1 gram - 130
1 cap. 60 50
Cannabis
1 lb (wholesale) (b) - -
1 lb (retail) (b) - 300
1 deal (ca. 1 oz) (a) 25-35 30
Hashish Resin
1 lb (b) - -
1 oz. (a) 200-300 100-120
1 deal
400-600
-
Buddha Sticks
imported (each) 15 15
local (each) 15 12
Hashish Oil
1 oz. (a) 350-600 350
1 cap. 30-50 -
$ $ $ $
2500-3000 _
(c) 100
(d) 140
120-140 120-150 -
30-40 40-60 60
290
400-450 350-450 400 -
35-40 30-35 30 52
1300 . _
- 100 - 400
- - 30 -
-
]e-15(e)
15-17 12
|20(e)
(c) 20
(d) 40
30-45 30 60
$ $
150 120-150
35
300-350
35 35
120 130-150
35
jl5(e) ]l2-15(e)
60 35-40
Notes:
(a) 1 ounce is approximately 28 grams. (b) 1 pound is approximately 454 grams. (c) Wholesale price.
(d) Retail price. (e) The different types were not distinguished.
A dash indicates these figures were not available.
Table IV-9
W h o l e s a l e a n d R e t a i l I l l e g a l D r u g P r i c e s , 1 9 7 7 a n d 1 979
($A)
M a r k e t U n i t ·
H e r o i n No. 3 H e r o i n No. 4
1 977 1 9 7 9 1 9 7 7 1 979
W h o l e s a l e
C h i a n g M a i 1 k g 4 5 0 1 2 0 0 1 8 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
B a n g k o k 1 k g 2 2 5 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 - 3 5 0 0 8 0 0 0
K u a l a L u m p u r 1 k g N / A 5 0 0 0 N / A 12 0 0 0
S y d n e y 1 k g 12 0 0 0 - 1 5 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 - 1 5 0 0 0 4 0 000
S y d n e y 28 g 1 9 0 0 - 2 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 3 000
R e t a i l
S y d n e y 0 . 2 g 3 4 - 4 5 60 4 0 - 6 0 60
N / A - T h e s e f i g u r e s w e r e n o t a v a i l a b l e â¢
($A)
U n i t â
B u d d h a S t i c k s C a n n a b i s (Local)
1977 1 9 7 9 1 9 7 7 1 979
W h o l e s a l e
B a n g k o k 1 k g 50 5 0 - 8 0
S y d n e y 1 k g 2 0 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 6 0 0 - 7 0 0
S y d n e y
R e t a i l
1 0 0
s t i c k s
7 0 0 - 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 - 1 0 0 0
S y d n e y 1 d e a l 30 2 5 - 3 5
S y d n e y 1 s t i c k 15 15
(?A)
C a n n a b i s R e s i n C a n n a b i s O i l
1977 1 9 7 9 1 977 1 979
W h o l e s a l e
O v e r s e a s 1 k g 4 0 0 - 5 0 0 5 0 0 - 8 0 0 3 0 0 - 5 0 0 5 0 0 - 1 0 0 0
S y d n e y 1 k g 3 0 0 0 - 3 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 - 8 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 - 1 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 - 1 2 0 0 0
R e t a i l
S y d n e y 2 8 g 1 0 0 - 1 5 0 4 0 0 - 6 0 0 (a)
2 0 0 - 3 0 0 (b)
S y d n e y cap. 20 3 0 - 5 0
(a) G o o d q u a l i t y T u r k i s h h a s h i s h
(b) P o o r q u a l i t y h a s h i s h
A257
Some evidence suggested that prices at the individual 'street' level (0.2 grams) might have increased more than indicated. Although
information supplied by Mr G. Cook of the New South Wales Health
Commission's D i v i s i o n of Analytical Laboratories showed that the purity of seized he r o i n analysed between 1977 and 1979 had not changed
significantly, evidence concerning packaging of street deals of the drug suggested the actual size of a street deal might have been reduced.
Both Comm o n w e a l t h and State law enforcement officers and some
user/dealers said the introduction of aluminium foil sachets for
p a ckaging street 'deals' had resulted in reductions in the quantity of
the deal. The implication of this evidence was that 's t r e e t ' deals
might often have been more than 0.2 grams in 1977 or before.
No specific evidence was received to explain the apparent aberration in the low increases quoted for prices paid at the 28 gram (one ounce)
l e v e l .
Buddha Sticks
The prices quoted for cannabis tops imported as Buddha sticks
suggested a relatively stable retail market despite some increases
overseas. This might be partly explained by evidence received in 1979
that while Australian-grown cannabis had once been regarded as always
inferior to good quality foreign cannabis, Australian-grown cannabis had increased in quality and popularity and that some Australian 'Grass
s t i c k s ' were often regarded as being as good as some imported sticks.
In g e n e r a l , h o w e v e r , evidence from various State police officers
mentioned that prices for this form of cannabis vary considerably
according to quantity available (such as after a big importation), the
quality and even its physical a p p e a r a n c e . Evidence was also given that
ma n y wholesale transactions of large amounts were negotiated on an
individual basis. For any or all of these reasons it is possible the
price quoted for a 1 kg lot of Buddha sticks might not be truly
representative of market levels generally.
A u s tralian Cannabis Leaf
A n apparent stability in retail prices despite rises in wholesale
prices could also be suggested b y the 1979 prices quoted for Australian- p roduced cannabis leaf. Again, however, the bulk of evidence received
suggested prices could vary widely and frequently because of quality and availability. Availability could be influenced both by seasonal factors and law enforcement activities. Detective Inspector G. D . B a k e r ,
Officer-in-Charge of the Victorian State Police Drug Bureau said law
enforcement activities in 1977 and 1978 in Griffith, New South Wales and seizures by his own bureau appear to have affected supplies.
Some evidence suggested that as might be the case with h e r o i n ,
prices quoted for a street level 'deal' might be an understatement
b ecause of variations in the quantity of a 'deal'. A senior NSW police
officer commented in confidential session in August 1979:
A258
The deal is generally the smallest quantity of Indian hemp sold
and u sually refers to about 1 ounce in weight contained in a
plastic bag. This is not the case at present and a deal might
refer to as little as half an ounce in weight.
(CT)
Cannabis Resin
Evidence suggested cannabis resin prices at all market levels appear to have increased dramatically between 1977 and 1979. Some State police evidence suggested most of the price increase occurred during 1979.
Evidence quoted earlier in this Chapter indicates cannabis resin is imported from several countries and that the quality varies considerably according to its origin. Prices quoted suggested that this variation in quality had led to two market levels being established for retail
p r i c e s .
Cannabis Oil
Evidence suggested the only factor influencing price levels of
cannabis oil was the degree to which it had been adulterated. However
bo t h Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers told the Commission cannabis oil was being imported in increasing a m o u n t s . This e v i d e n c e ,
along with evidence indicating that cannabis oil was rarely seen in an
adulterated form in Sydney in m i d - 1979, suggests that the 1979 retail
prices quoted might in fact be at least partly due to increased levels
of purity.
Profit Margins
While the evidence discussed above is to a large degree speculative, all witnesses agreed on one fundamental point: whatever the price for
an illegal drug may be at any t i m e , the profit margins at any level are
s u b s t a n t i a l , even if one ignores the prospect of adding another profit- increasing dimension by adulteration or 'cutting'. This, witnesses
a g r e e d , was par t i c u l a r l y so in the case of h e r o i n .
A lthough evidence already quoted suggested that levels of purity
mi g h t in ma n y cases be higher than 10 per cent, Detective Inspector P.
A. G. Lawrence of the NSW Police Drug Squad used this level to
illustrate the potential for profit in the importation and trafficking
of 1 lb (454 g r a m s ) :
A person imports one pound of number 4 heroin containing a
diamorphine concentration of 85 per cent. After cutting to a
concentration of 10 per cent we obtain eight and a half pounds
of number 4 at 10 per cent diamorphine concentration.
Consumption on the street is in street grams at $120 each.
T h e r e f o r e , eight and a half pounds equals approximately three
thousand eight hundred and fifty nine gram weights (3859 grams)
A259
wh i c h also equals nine thousand, six hundred and forty-seven
and a half street grams (9647.5 street g r a m s ) .
R e m e m b e r i n g the price of $120 per street gram with a
conc e n t r a t i o n of 10 per cent (the highest of the average) the
total street value is $1 157 700.00.
(CT)
The implications of this for the Australian economy generally are
discussed in Chapter 7 of this Part of the Report dealing with the
organised basis of drug-related crime.
D I S T R IBUTION ARRANGEMENTS
The degree of p e r m a n e n c e , size and organisation of illegal drug
distribution in Australia is discussed in Chapter 7. The Commission was left in no doubt as to the existence of such a r r a n g e m e n t s . Evidence
from v i r tually all quarters supported the sentiments expressed in the
first Dep a r t m e n t of Business and Consumer Affairs' submission to the
C o m mission in Nov e m b e r 1977. The submission said:
Successful drug importation and trafficking demand a
considerable degree of organisation. The fact that it has
international implications; requires sophisticated methods of c o n c e a l m e n t ; complex chains of distribution; and involves
substantial amounts of cash; all suggest the need for
substantial organisation to cater for such activity on a
continuing basis.
Indications of the degree of organisation that drug trafficking has reached in Australia i n c l u d e :
drug availability through importation or domestic
cultivation has virtually reached all population centres within Australia
a well established market with massive profits flowing
from a controlled supply.
(OT 100A)
'P y r a m i d 1 Arrangements
As m e ntioned e a r l i e r , most witnesses distinguished between smaller 'straight l i n e ' arrangements involving relatively small quantities of drugs and small numbers of people and the large-scale 'pyramid1
arrangements involving organisation and activities such as those
described in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs submission.
Examples of these 'p y r a m i d ' arrangements quoted to the Commission
included those involving both heroin and cannabis, and localised
arrangements covering cities or States and interstate a r r a n gements.
A260
Organisational diagram of one Melbourne heroin distribution group detected in 1978 Figure IV.l
A (Sydney, NSW)
1 r
B (Melbourne) C (Melbourne)
D (Used motor cars)
V M ' '
E F G
/N/N/NStreet level dealers Î 1 J K
ylx/NztvZNStreet level dealers
A261
A senior Victorian police officer described in detail how a Sydney--
Melbourne distribution pyramid was suspected to be operating in 1978 and submitted a diagram of the pyramid. This diagram in a Confidential
Exhibit, is reproduced as Figure I V . 1 with letters substituted for names supplied by the police officer.
The police officer explained that Î ' , residing in Sydney, bought
heroin to Mel b o u r n e for 'B ' and 'C', two wholesalers in separate parts
of M e l b o u r n e . ' B ' then distributed it to smaller-scale wholesalers Î ', 'F ' and 'G ' while 'C' distributed to Î ' , '1 1 and 'J ' . These smaller-
scale wholesalers then distributed to street dealers.
Police b elieved that 'D', a used car d e a l e r , supplied cars to 'B ' to
transport heroin shipments from Sydney, either personally or by courier. While the areas supplied by âB ' and 'C' could overlap, police believed
' B ' and 1C 1 operated inde p e n d e n t l y . Police also believed it was
possible that dealers in 'B ' pyramid could buy from dealers in 'C 1
pyramid if supplies were short.
An example of pyramid distribution of cannabis was outlined by law
students J. McKenzie and I. Robinson in their paper entitled 'The
Distribution Hierarchy of Illegal Drugs in NSW'. This paper, prepared
as part of final year university research studies was included in a
submission from the Cannabis Research Foundation of Australia. It read in part:
Prior to return (from overseas) quantities of hashish and/or
buddha sticks are carefully concealed to avoid Customs. In
this regard quantities of 50 000 buddha sticks are not
u n c o m m o n . ..
...In the initial stage knowledge of the whole deal extends to
no more than two or three persons and within a few hours of
arrival in Australia the whole 50 000 sticks are disposed of to
this select group. Distribution is then by way of a p yramidÂ
like pattern with increased numbers of participants and
p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y higher prices at subsequent stages.
Typically, these 50 000 buddha sticks would be resold by the
initial connections in lots of tens of thousands at a price of
$3--$4 per stick. Up until this stage finance is largely
personal or co-operative and strictly on a cash basis, with
something in the order of twenty people aware of the existence
of the shipment...
The process then proceeds with these twenty people selling by
means of orders for thousands of buddha sticks accompanied with cash sufficient to cover a purchase price of $5--$6 per stick.
These thousand lots would be usually disposed of in quantities of hundred for $7--$8 per stick, followed by disposal in lots
A262
of tens at $8 . 5 0 â $9 per stick and finally individual sticks
will be sold for $10--$12. (It is to be noted that prices vary
within the given range according to the quantities purchased
and sold at each stage.) Within one week of the shipment
landing in Australia it is fully distributed and on the
s t r e e t s .
(OT 10863--65)
Distribution Centres and Supply Routes
A great deal of e v idence---much of it speculative---was received by
the Commission from all sources concerning the s i z e , composition and
degree of centralisation of trafficking g r o u p s , particularly those
involving members of ethnic communities and people involved in criminal activities other than drug trafficking.
This evidence and certain initiatives taken b y the Commission are
discussed in detail in Chapter 7 of this P a r t . Some of the evidence
relating to these questions is outlined below.
Evidence concerning distribution centres and supply routes for drug trafficking wi t h i n Australia generally acknowledged that many elements such as source of production or point of importation were involved and
t h a t , as with many legal commercial e n t e r p r i s e s , the interplay of these elements can cause sudden and frequent fluctuations in the way drugs
reach c o n s u m e r s .
Most evidence a g r e e d , that irrespective of the drug involved, its
origins, or the trafficking arrangement involved, the 'retailers' or street d e a l e r s---the traffickers actually supplying the drugs to
u s e r s---must be located in centres of population close to users. The
first submission to the Commission from the Department of Business and
C o nsumer Affairs described the situation in these words:
Whilst the importer may favour less populated areas to effect
his importation (e.g. remote coastal areas of northern and
w estern Australia) the distributor is committed to operate from
urban areas.
(OT 83B)
As a result of this, most witnesses a g r e e d , capital cities were the
ma j o r trafficking centres in each of the States with similar but
correspondingly less activity being carried out in the large provincial
c e n t r e s .
Some witnesses also made the point that, although in large-scale and regular trafficking of the pyramid type top and middle echelon
traffickers were located in large cities, wholesale traffickers
supplying drugs regularly to street dealers or perhaps other wholesalers could operate in' more than one centre. They might import foreign-
p roduced drugs or bu y Australian-produced drugs in one centre and then
sell at least some to traffickers in other c e n t r e s . The pyramid
A263
arrangement outlined in Victorian State Police evidence quoted earlier in this Chapter exemplifies this.
Some users gave examples in confidential session of the low
incidence or non-existence of regular trafficking away from large
p o p ulation c e n t r e s , even in cases where there were user c o m m unities. A
cannabis user said although marihuana was regularly smoked in a mining
community in T a s m a n i a , regular supplies were not available within the
community except for a few plants grown by users for their own use.
Users had to travel at least 100 km to a town where marihuana could be
p u r c h a s e d . Ano t h e r confidential witness indicated that retail dealers who operated in smaller provincial centres generally travelled to the
nearest capital city for supplies. J. McKenzie and I. Robinson in their
paper 'The Distribution Hierarchy of Illegal Drugs in NSW' suggested
cannabis growers took their product to large centres of population for
distribution at least partly in the interests of keeping growing
locations secret (OT 10869).
Several witnesses expressed the opinion that Sydney was a central
link or even a 'headquarters' for much of the systematic drug
trafficking in Australia, particularly for imported drugs and especially heroin, irrespective of where the drug had entered Australia or where it was ultimately sold to a user.
In one of the Commission's first hearings, in November 1977, Mr H.
Bates, Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, said:
Sydney certainly would be the major trafficking centre for
drugs in Australia. It seems that most of the major shipments
entering Australia go to Sydney for redistribution from there if they are not already imported into Sydney.
(OT 337)
Detective Inspector G. D . Baker, Officer-in-Charge of the Victoria State Police Drug Bureau, when talking about the importation of heroin
into Australia and its subsequent trafficking said:
I can only say from our e x p e r i e n c e ... the majority finally
arrives in S y d n e y . . .The people we talk to lead us to believe
their supply does come down from Sydney. Whether it comes
through Tullamarine (Melbourne Airport) and back again, I do
not know.
(OT 2768)
Detective Sergeant D. J. Craft, Officer-in-Charge of the Australian Capital Territory Police Drug Squad, explained why he considered Sydney so important in the illegal drug distribution in the following words: I
I think Sydney has the population to be capable of catering for
p r a c tically anything that can be brought in there; n u m b e r - w i s e . They have a population there that could conceal the activities
A264
of people involved in distributing drugs more easily than any
other place.
(OT 235)
O n the other hand, confidential evidence from a N e w South Wales
police officer, indicated that to consider Sydney as the 1 central link' in Australia-wide trafficking could be an over-simplification, and that trafficking arrangements were flexible and could d e p e n d , in the case of imported d r u g s , on the point of importation. After acknowledging
Sydney's pre-eminence as a drug market because of the size of its
p o p ulation and its airport and sea port, he said:
I wo u l d not say it is the headquarters of the drug scene or the
headquarters of supply because we know that we get heroin
coming up from M e l b o u r n e , we have had heroin come from Perth
and we have had heroin coming from Brisbane and of course we
have also had our fellows taking it down there. I think it is
a matter of where the supply is available to the particular
group that is selling it.
(CT)
Evidence indicated that State borders made little or no difference
in the transportation of drugs from sites of importation or production
and that in some instances, particularly that of heroin or other drugs
of small b u l k , drugs were often transported considerable distances.
Some evidence from authoritative witnesses indicated that distributions of any scale or duration p r obably involved connections in States other
than the main distribution centre.
Most witnesses who referred to transportation methods used by
traffickers agreed with Detective Inspector G. D . Baker of the Victoria State Police Drug Bureau who said the most common methods used were (OT
2764):
- personal couriers travelling by road, rail or air;
- shipment by road or air f r e i g h t ;
- concealment in compartments of motor vehicles either driven or
f r e i g h t e d .
Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmanian State Police Drug Bureau
indicated that because Tasmania was an island State, transportation
methods used by traffickers bringing drugs into the State varied
somewhat from the mainland States. As well as the above methods, he
also mentioned the availability of cargo shipping and private boats or
planes. He added:
Dr u g intelligence available and general opinions suggest that the m a jority of bulk supplies are arriving either by air cargo
or by post.
A265
Intelligence reveals that at least one syndicate is engaged in transporting drugs into the State in large quantities by
p rivate a i r c r a f t .
(OT 1077--78)
Two T a smanian drug users individually told in confidential session of ma r i h u a n a entering the State from the mainland in shipping
c o n t a i n e r s .
In N e w South Wales, many witnesses besides those already quoted
expressed the belief that traffickers regularly used two-way
distribution routes between Sydney and all major population centres
throughout A u stralia as well as within New South Wales itself.
Variations of the routes quoted were virtually e n d l e s s , but in the case
of imported drugs, evidence cited several examples of importers using
international airports or seaports in Perth, Brisbane or Melbourne as an initial port of importation but with the intention of having the drug
ultimately reach Sydney. Australian-grown cannabis also entered Sydney, either for the local market or for distribution to other parts of the
State, from the major cannabis cultivation areas of Griffith (NSW),
South Australia and north Q u e e n s l a n d .
In Victoria, Detective Inspector G. D. Baker, Officer-in-Charge of the Victoria State Police Drug Bureau, said that while it would be
foolish to say no drugs from Melbourne found their way to other States,
the majority which came to Melbourne was consumed in Melbourne (OT
2769). In answer to suggestions that people in other States,
particularly South Australia and Tasmania, saw Melbourne as a
distribution source of drugs, he indicated that the Victorian police
believed that while there would be cases of two-way trafficking between, say, South Australia and Victoria, most of the drugs thought to have had
Melbourne as an initial distribution point were in fact originally
distributed from Sydney. In the case of locally grown cannabis,
Inspector Baker remarked that Victorian police had noticed that a recent shortage appeared to have coincided with enforcement activities and
p u blicity concerning cannabis plantations in the Griffith area of New
South Wales. Mr D. J. M i t c h e l l , Southern Region Commander of the
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, supported Inspector Baker's contention that drugs in the ma i n appeared to be coming from Sydney, and two users in
confidential evidence told the Commission of visits to Sydney to collect heroin for trafficking in M e l b o u r n e .
Apart from the evidence quoted already concerning a Sydney--
Melbourne heroin distribution p y r a m i d , a drug user suggested about nine major wholesale dealers in marihuana operated in Melbourne, and that
these nine pro b a b l y were financed by people above them. A former
Victoria State Police officer agreed there were a number of small
independent groups operating. He could not, h o w e v e r , estimate how many groups were i n v o l v e d .
In Queensland, drug users and officials associated with law
enforcement gave e x a m p l e s , in c o n f i d e n c e , of the wide variety of
distribution routes and origins of supply of heroin. Two users told of
A266
a trafficking group in the southern part of Brisbane importing heroin by courier from W o l longong and Melbourne, another witness spoke of a
trafficker who imported heroin directly from o v e r s e a s , and another
witness referred to the use of couriers to transport drugs from Sydney
to Brisbane. A senior State police officer, in confidential session,
referred to exchanges of information with other State police forces
concerning shipments of cannabis grown in northern Queensland being
transported by road and air from Q u e e n s l a n d . The police officer a d d e d :
Whilst successful prosecutions have been launched as the
consequence of such information, it is considered that a
substantial amount of cannabis sativa is being sent interstate without being detected.
(CT)
In South Australia, Customs officers and law enforcement officers
were in general agreement that Adelaide's relative isolation from
international airline and passenger sea routes reduced the incidence of direct importation from o v e r s e a s . Chief Inspector P. A. Collins of the
South Australian Police and Mr H. C. Barrington, a senior Narcotics
Bu r e a u a g e n t , said the m ajority of drugs came from Sydney, although some also came from Melbourne and Perth.
In its submission to the South Australian Royal Commission
subsequently taken into the evidence of this Commission in March 1978,
the South Australia Police Department made the following comments on the incidence of organised trafficking in the S t a t e :
There is a proliferation of the smaller 'pedlar' type
operations which tend to be involved in trafficking in one
variety of drug obtained from a particular source...
Less common are the family or peer group o r g a n i s a t i o n s , which
are actually responsible for the distribution of the bulk of
the cannabis in the metropolitan Adelaide. One such
organisation is believed to control distribution on one side of
A d e l a i d e .
Ak i n to this type of organisation is the extended family groups
which are common overseas among certain nationalities. At
least one such group is active currently in the cultivation and distribution of Indian h e m p .
Two large South Australian cultivations which were thought
o r i ginally not to be connected, are now believed to have been
part of an extended family organisation which has continued to
operate in South Australia and New South Wales at least.
In the past, the weakness of these family, extended family or
peer group o r g a n i s a t i o n s , has been their tendency to be too
A267
closely associated with street level distribution. This has
exposed their pedlars to police action, and in some instances
also opened the lines of intelligence communications right back to the c u l t i v a t i o n s .
An o t h e r type of organisation seems to be involved in the
d i s t r ibution of a variety of d r u g s . Considerable attention is given to isolating the various levels of operations, to reduce the risks of the Police identifying the upper echelon. This is
so effective that it is difficult to ascertain at what level of
the py r a m i d the operations merge into a single control in one
organisation, or a number of similar controls in separate
o r g a n i s a t i o n s .
The Police have identified a number of individuals who are
suspected of occupying managerial positions in these multi-tier organisations. Whether or not they occupy m iddle or executive m a n agement positions is not clear. There appears to be a
certain degree of co-operation on issues such as division of
territory, but whether this co-operation is merely an
arrangement of convenience between different operators, or is a result of subservience to an upper echelon, is yet to be
d e t e r m i n e d .
(OT 8317â 18).
Other South Australian police evidence given in confidence referred to an Adelaide connection receiving 56 grams (two ounces) of heroin,
po s s i b l y on a weekly basis, from Sydney and distributing it to lower
dealers.
In W estern A u s t r a l i a , Inspector D. T. Ayres of the West Australian
State Police said the majority of heroin consumed in the State was
imported directly from overseas. Some of the heroin imported passed
through We s t e r n Australia in transit to eastern States, he said. Mr J.
A. T r a v e r s , a Chief Investigator of the Narcotics Bureau said most
marihuana used in Western Australia came from eastern States with local traffickers obtaining supplies from Sydney and Melbourne (OT 637). A
C o m m o nwealth Police Officer cited an example in confidential session of drugs being obtained in Adelaide and transported to Perth for sale.
Evidence from Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers
indicated trafficking in Perth was limited to mostly small operations of the 'straight-line' t y p e . Heroin users obtained their supplies either by personal importation or from friends who also imported the drug
personally. Cannabis traffickers were described as 'a lot of little
p e o p l e '.
In Tasmania, evidence from both users and law enforcement officers indicated there was little international importation of drugs into the State, but that most came from mainland States, particularly Melbourne and Sydney. Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmania Police Drug Bureau
summed up the situation as he saw it in the following words:
A268
From experience it would appear that generally an interstate
connection is the origin of the trafficking transaction in this State. F r o m previous investigations it seems usual for either
the interstate connection to instigate the trafficking by
advising the Tasmanian connection of the availability or the
Tasmanian offenders visiting other States soliciting the
p r o curing of the drugs concerned and returning with the drugs
for resale.
(OT 1084)
...It is estimated that about 50% of illicit drugs imported
into the State of Tasmania, produced within this State or
trafficked herein, are attributable to organised syndicates
wi t h varying degrees of involvement by those organisations.
Some involved are seeking only small m o netary gains that
supplement their own supplies and would not be described as
be i n g on an organised basis.
(OT 1092)
Inspector Cashion said the involvement of non-users in trafficking in Tasmania had been evident to any extent only from about 1974.
In the N o rthern Territory, law enforcement officers such as Chief
Inspector W. L. Goedegebuure of the Northern Territory Police Force (OT 5674) and a senior narcotics agent of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
agreed most drugs trafficked in the Territory appeared to have come from Sy d n e y a n d , to a lesser d e g r e e , M e l b o u r n e . Cannabis was also
transported to Darwin from northern Q u e e n s l a n d .
A N orthern T e rritory law enforcement officer said, in confidential e v i d e n c e , analysis of heroin seized in the last six months of 1977
indicated there could be two 'streams' of dealers. Several other
s e i z u r e s , however, contained different cutting agents, indicating a
number of people outside these two streams were also distributing heroin in Darwin. Sergeant B. W. Fardell of the Northern Territory Police Drug
S q u a d , commented that distribution of heroin in Darwin involved three levels of d e a l e r s---the addict receiving the heroin, who sold it to
another wholesale addict who sold it to a street dealer (OT 21542).
In the A u s t r a l i a n Capital Territory, Detective Sergeant D. J. Craft, O f f i cer-in-Charge of the A.C.T. Drug Squad, stated that although there we r e some instances of people journeying overseas and personally
importing he r o i n on an individual basis, most imported 'hard' drugs
reached Canberra from Melbourne and particularly Sydney (OT 227--3S) ,
A u s t r a l i a n - g r o w n cannabis reached the A.C.T. from areas of south western and northern NSW, from southern Q u e e n s l a n d , South Australia and northern
Victoria.
Later A.C.T. Police evidence commented to the effect that cannabis
supplies were believed to be organised both at the sources of supply and
the avenues of distribution (OT 7417).
A269
E vidence indicated that although there were instances of people from virtually all sections of the community being involved in drug
trafficking, the two reasons for this involvement w e r e :
People involved in trafficking
- the need to support a drug h a b i t ;
- the attraction of large profits to be made.
In the case of more sophisticated distribution the pyramid
arrangement witnesses generally concurred that while it was difficult to generalise, the incidence of traffickers using drugs decreased as one progressed up the dealer hierarchy. Users and law enforcement officers in general agreed that while street dealers almost invariably used
drugs, and some wholesalers used d r u g s , those involved in the upper
echelons of trafficking rarely used drugs themselves and often had no
identifiable drug associations. This, most witnesses felt, was
particularly true in the case of heroin.
F i n a n c i e r s , Importers and Growers
The top level of pyramid distribution arrangements was generally
defined by witnesses as consisting of financiers, importers (although not necessarily persons personally importing drug s ) , and in the case of cannabis, growers.
Witnesses agreed that the financiers were the people most likely to avoid detection. It was suggested that at this level, individuals
jealously guarded their anonymity a n d , apart from those with a general
criminal background discussed later in Chapter 7 of this Part of the
Report, they would have seemingly impeccable lifestyles. These
financiers were at pains to maintain a strictly legitimate appearance
and would usually have business activities to account for their incomes.
These witnesses explained that the financiers simply provided the required capital for either the illegal importation or production of
drugs: the actual operation was organised by a b o r r o w e r . One user
suggested the profits offered to financiers were as high as 100 or 200
per cent. This user also commented that the only risk to the
investment ---apart from the almost negligible risk of personal
detection ---was that the people actually involved in the importation, production or trafficking could be arrested and the drug confiscated or that drugs and/or money could be 'ripped off'. The user felt, h owever,
that if one or two operations were successful the financier could easily bear the loss.
Evidence quoted earlier in this Chapter and in Chapters 2 and 3
indicated that apart from those importers who personally imported drugs for their own use, importers made distribution arrangements or had the
potential to do so before the drugs reached Australia. Large-scale
A270
importers often used couriers to make such i m p o r t a t i o n s , and in the case of part i c u l a r l y large shipments, might obtain finance either directly from financiers or from wholesalers.
A confidential witness gave two examples of the arrangements he had
made to import heroin. In 1975 he bought 26 oz (735 grams) of heroin in
Bangkok for $2000, paid a courier $7000 commission to bring it into
Australia and then sold it to a dealer under a prior arrangement for $40
000. Expenses including air fares and the courier's commission left a
net profit of approximately $30 000. In 1976 he bought one lb (454
grams) of heroin in Penang for $2000, again used a courier to import it
into Australia, and again sold it to a contact by prior arrangement this
time for $38 000. The courier had been paid $5000 plus one ounce (28
grams) of heroin.
Apart from evidence concerning small groups of people trafficking in cannabis for their own use or that of close associates, a great deal of
the evidence concerning systematic and regular growing and trafficking of Australia n - g r o w n cannabis concerned the involvement of groups of
people of similar ethnic backgrounds. This question is dealt with in
Chapter 7, although the Commission noted that these groups were not the
on l y ones involved in large scale production and trafficking. One case
cited to the Commission, concerning the discovery of a cannabis
pla n t a t i o n in north Australia, suggested that the person who established the p l a ntation had borrowed the finance to do so from an overseas
s o u r c e .
Wholesale Dealers
The term 'wholesale dealers' was used by witnesses to describe the
middle levels of distribution pyramids. It includes those people who
m a k e 'the connection' between grower or importer and the street dealers. M a n y examples given to the Commission included persons operating in the role of entrepreneur. It was this person who knew someone who could
import or grow drugs, it was this person who could arrange finance if
required, and it was this person who had contacts with other d ealers---
either wholesalers or street de a l e r s---who could distribute the drug
quickly and without detection.
Several witnesses said that in the higher levels of wholesale
dealing, the participants limited their association with drug
traffickers to a few other wholesale dealers to lessen the risk of
detection and that like many of those in the top level of the
distribution pyramid, these upper-level wholesalers took on a mantle of respectability by being associated with legitimate business enterprises
(0T 8 4 1 8 S ) .
Many lower-level wholesalers, the evidence indicated, were people w h o had progressed from street dealing. Although such progression could result from the need to support a growing habit, it was often associated
w i t h a desire to make money (OT 8316). One trafficker who also smoked
heroin but did not classify himself as a hard core addict explained how,
A271
after being involved in 'the drug scene' for some time, he had moved
from retail to wholesale trafficking. He said:
...if you've got half a brain in your head you start to realise
that you're doing it incorrectly and instead of making contact wi t h a hundred people and earning 3 bucks off each of that
hundred, what you ought to do is to make contact with one
p e r s o n and earn 300 off him. So you gradually learn to move up
(CT)
Street Dealers
Evidence suggested street dealers tended to obtain their wares from several s o u r c e s---wholesale d e a l e r s , other user/dealers or perhaps
occasional importers or small producers. They sold to a small circle of
acquaintances and to occasional clients recommended by a trusted
a s s o c i a t e .
Motives quoted to the Commission for trafficking in drugs in general at street level included such reasons as gaining favour or popularity in pe e r groups or, as in the case of marihuana, the desire to promote a
par t i c u l a r phi l o s o p h y about the use of a drug. The Commission noted
that in v i rtually all cases where users sold d r u g s , they did so out of
need to have an assured money supply to support their own drug usage.
Some law enforcement officers and user/dealers, made a distinction b etween heroin street dealers and at least some of those low-level
dealers wh o trafficked only in cannabis, particularly in leaf form.
While both heroin and cannabis street dealers sought to maintain their
usage, the heroin user's need of money was much more desperate than that
of the cannabis user.
V i r tually all witnesses agreed in principle with Chief Inspector W. L. Goedegebuure of the Northern Territory Police who said in evidence in Ma r c h 1978:
It has come to the knowledge of investigators of the Northern
Ter r i t o r y Police that a person who is addicted to heroin may
need as mu c h as $100 per day to maintain such addiction. There
is no lawful way in which a heroin addict can earn such sums of
money and one of the most prevalent ways of doing so is to sell
drugs of most types.
(OT 5669)
Heroin user/dealers who told of their personal experiences in
dealing to support their addiction included one who estimated his habit as costing $500 to $1000 a week.
Witnesses who talked of cannabis user/dealers, suggested that while wholesalers were generally motivated by greed in much the same way as
heroin wholesalers, some cannabis street dealers were interested in
A272
trafficking only in cannabis and considered it a social drug. Although
they considered cannabis a part of their lifestyle they did not consider it p a r t icularly harmful or that its use should be illegal.
These witnesses agreed in essence with the explanation offered by
one cannabis user who said in confidential session:
To me there are two basic sources of supply. There are the
people who just enjoy smoking a bit of pot, who bring it in and
distribute it to friends more or less at c o s t , and there are
people who a r e , you would say, dealing in it for profit, and
they often deal in narcotics and stuff as w e l l .
(CT)
One witness who obviously considered himself in the first category
presented this p icture of his dealing activities:
We deal in quantities of marihuana up to several pounds and up
to half a pound of hashish. The motivation for dealing arises
from some other members of m y household who would like it to
pa y for their living expenses (food, rent, etc.). I can afford
to pa y for my rent and food with ease but the others are
students or work part-time so such dealing is a valuable
contribution to their income. Also I have the capital to buy
the quantities of cannabis we sell.
One fringe benefit of our dealing is that as long as we are
dealing our supply of free high quality cannabis is a s s u r e d .
The grass or hash is bought from a dealer with cash though
sometimes we get credit. R ecently grass has cost up to $380 a
pound, hash is something like $160 an o u n c e . These are
considered high, almost exorbitant prices. Bought in these
quantities it is approximately 30 per cent cheaper than the
street price.
We package the cannabis in street amounts (marihuana---1 ounce
$30, hashish 3 â 5 grams $20 or $25) and deliver much of what we
s e l l .
Selling involves being visited by or visiting friends who have
expressed an interest in what we have g o t . Normally the
m e r c handise is sampled in a joint or bong (water pipe) to
determine not so much whether to buy as rather how much to buy.
The whole process takes place in a l o w - k e y , friendly, n o n Â
commercial atmosphere.
We never sell what we do not or would not use and we only deal
to f r i e n d s . As a result we only sell good quality cannabis and
if our 'contacts cannot get any our dealing stops until they
can. This mode of distribution is fairly typical for the
ma j o r i t y of regular cannabis users who have been smoking for
A273
some time. People who have 'settled down' and regularised
their use seldom buy from total strangers, most commonly close friends are the source.
F u r t h e r m o r e , the roles of personal buyer and dealer can often
be r e v e r s e d . I ma y sell an ounce to some friends at one time
and bu y an ounce from those same friends at a different time if
m y contacts have dried up and theirs are still open.
(CT)
Alt h o u g h evidence concerning middle-level and top-level traffickers showed it would be extremely misleading to generalise about any
p a r ticular segment of society and its relationship to drug trafficking evidence concerning drug usage gave some indication of the types of
people most likely to take part in street trafficking.
Patterns and extent of drug usage are discussed elsewhere in this
Report, but it is worth noting in the present context that of 139
witnesses whose case history of drug usage was examined by the
Commission, 5 5---almost 40 per cent--- admitted selling drugs to support their u s a g e .
Evidence from all sources agreed it was easy for wholesalers to
recruit d e a l e r s . Several witnesses pointed out that, while street
dealers were the most vulnerable of t r a f f i c k e r s , they were also the most dependable. If street dealers were apprehended other street dealers
could q uickly be found to take their place.
Other People Involved in Trafficking
Apart from the evidence concerning ethnic groups and criminals which is discussed in Chapter 7 other evidence presented to the Commission
referred to some people w h o , because of their occupations or group
associations, were close to or could actually be involved in regular
drug trafficking, either as wholesalers or retailers.
People mentioned by witnesses in this context included some involved in e n t e r t a i n m e n t ; members of motorcycle g a n g s ; people involved in
p r o s t itution and massage p a r l o u r s ; people associated with some
homosexual groups and even law enforcement officers.
Allegations made by users or dealers concerning actual trafficking by law enforcement officers included instances where these witnesses
alleged law enforcement officers had not reported the full amount of
drugs seized, a p p arently in order to keep some of the drugs seized and
sell them t h e m s e l v e s .
Schoolchildren
A l though evidence included many examples of young people being
involved in the use and/or selling of drugs and some young users told of
selling drugs to fellow students, these activities appeared to fall into three categories of descending order of incidence---school l eavers,
either employed or unemployed; tertiary students, either part-time or full-time; and to a much lesser extent high school students.
A274
Some people who could be classified as regular drug traffickers or
users told the Commission of having heard about attempts by other
dealers to sell drugs among high school students, and a Melbourne
teacher in confidential session cited a case where fourth form students had 'stood o v e r 1 younger children to buy, for $5 each, matchboxes of
marihuana supplied b y an older young man.
On the whole the Commission received little evidence of actual
trafficking being carried out by school children particularly within
school precincts. A university student who had used various drugs
including heroin said in confidential session that although high school students could obtain d r u g s , p a r t i cularly cannabis, the high purchase price of most drugs precluded regular and systematic trafficking in
s c h o o l s .
M ETHODS AND PLACES OF TRAFFICKING
Evidence clearly established that the methods and places used in
w h olesale trafficking are virtually limitless. Because they are linked to a source of supply or point of importation, wholesalers seek to vary
their methods of operation in the interests of secrecy. A few examples
of wholesale trafficking operations are quoted here to illustrate these m e t h o d s .
Methods of Trafficking
Personal experiences quoted by heroin users and dealers are too
numerous to be set o u t . A Melbourne man told of how he had set up a
connection. The Melbourne man, who commented that he was 'a hopeless
j u n k i e ' at the time, said a wholesaler who was living in Sydney had come
to his Melbourne flat and offered him some good quality heroin. The
two had gone to Sydney and stayed overnight at the Hilton Hotel. The
w h o lesaler had an amount of heroin which the Melbourne man estimated to
be between 8 and 16 ounces (227 to 454 grams) packed in one-ounce bags
and hidden in a car which the wholesaler had garaged in the hotel's car
park. The Melbourne man bought two one-ounce bags for $1500 each. He
paid $1000 in cash and promised to pa y the remaining $2000 within two
days. He returned to Melbourne, kept 5 grams for his own use and added
glucose to the remaining heroin to make a total of about 60 grams. He
then divided the heroin into 10 gram lots which he sold within 17 h o u r s .
He made another seven buying trips to Sydney in the next nine d a y s . The
Melbourne ma n explained that the Sydney man was buying heroin in 1 lb
lots while he was buying ounce lots and selling in 10 gram lots to two
me n for $1000 per lot.
A N o r t h e r n Territory example of cannabis trafficking had points of
s i m i l a r i t i e s .
(Two Katherine wholesale dealers) would meet Darwin dealers at (a) flat (in Katherine), obtain the money from them for the
required amount, $350 per p o u n d , then leave the flat, either in
a vehicle borrowed from the Darwin dealers or some other
person, leaving the Darwin dealers at the flat. (The
wholesalers) would then go, ostensibly, to the plantation or a
p i c k up point in the v icinity of the plantation where the
A275
cannabis would be collected from the plantation o w n e r , payment for w h i c h was from the Darwin dealers' money, at the same time
k e e p i n g their share for handling the deal. It was later
asc e r t a i n e d that their share was $150 per pound thus the
p l a n t a t i o n owner being paid $200 per p o u n d . (The wholesalers) w o u l d then return to Katherine, leaving the cannabis just
outside of the town, and inform the Darwin dealers where to
collect it on their way back to Darwin.
(CT)
A Q u e e n s l a n d dealer 1 A' progressed from being a small cannabis buyer on credit to a dealer in substantial amounts before his arrest. The
dealer, 'A' , started dealing in cannabis in January 1975 b y buying 101b (4.5kg) of cannabis from 'M' who gave him credit. Î ' made a profit of
b etween $10 and $15 a lb. By April 1975 1 A 1 had sold between 40 and
501b of m a rihuana supplied by 'M '. 'A ' also bought marihuana from two
growers near Nimbin, New South Wales from January 1975. He was paying
$250 a lb and ma k i n g a profit of about $50 a lb. Although he supplied
the growers wi t h some seeds, 'A' never saw the crops. By April 1 A 1 had
amassed a few thousand dollars. He also was able to buy the marihuana
from the N i m b i n farmers at the reduced price of $200 a lb. Between June
and August 1A' sold to three men from Sydney, 'X', Î ' and â Z ' . These
m e n would come to Queensland every fortnight and collect either 51b or
101b of m a r ihuana from Î ' and then take it back to Sydney. Î 1 would
charge them b etween $250 and $260 a lb. In August 'X' and 'Y' moved to
Queensland and from then until December bought 101b, 151b or 201b lots
from Î ' ev e r y 10 days. 1 A' told police after his arrest the largest
single transaction he had made was a 201b lot for $6000. He also had
made several sales of between $3000 and $4000.
Other evidence indicating the degree of sophistication of some of
the larger wholesalers, and particularly their efforts to maintain
security included:
- the m ovement of drugs within Australia by mail or airfreight to
avoid p hysical association with the drugs during transportation;
- the use of couriers for personal transportation (such as in the case
of heroin);
- the use of coded messages and two-way portable radio communications
to p rotect the security of drug tran s a c t i o n s ;
- the use of radios to monitor law enforcement radio conversations;
- the use of bank safety deposit boxes and post office boxes for the
holding and transfer of d r u g s ;and
- the p e n e t r a t i o n on occasion of confidential law enforcement
i n f o r m a t i o n .
M r D. J. Mitchell, Southern Region Commander of the Narcotics Bureau p ointed out that there was no common or generally used method of
delivering drugs, but he listed the following examples of some methods
used in w h olesale and retail trafficking.
A276
A. An order is placed wi t h a trafficker, usually by telephone. The
amount ordered is transferred from a store to a pick-up point. The
buyer arrives at a m eeting point, pays the purchase price and is
told where his consignment is h i d d e n .
B. The buyer arrives at the s e l l e r âs place of business and pays money
for drugs wh i c h are recovered by the seller from a hiding place on
the buyer's arrival.
C. The buyer orders by telephone and is told to go to a meeting place
at a certain time where he is met by the buyer with the requested
amount of drug wh i c h the seller in the interim has got from a store.
D . An arrangement similar to (C) but with the seller having a partner
who makes the actual transaction so the seller is not personally
i n v o l v e d .
E. Drugs are left in a store, such as an empty flat, which certain
trusted buyers know a b o u t . The buyers can draw on the store as they
wish on credit and records are kept of purchases. The buyers are
often people who sell to users, and payment is made wh e n these sales
have been t r a n s a c t e d . The keeper of the store does not handle the
d r u g s .
F . The seller simply delivers at an agreed time and place upon receipt
of a telephoned o r d e r .
Other methods of delivery quoted by witnesses included the use of
cars, either b y transferring drugs from one car to another or by
completing an exchange of drugs and cash in a moving car.
Places
Evidence concerning places where drugs were retailed again
demonstrated traffickers' awareness of the need to avoid establishing regular patterns of behaviour and thereby increasing chances of
detection. However the places most commonly m entioned by witnesses in
relation to 'street dealing' were those frequented by young p e o p l e .
These included hotels, b a r s , and places of entertainment such as disco
dance e s t a b l i s h m e n t s .
Some users also mentioned drugs being available at rehabilitation
clinics and referral centres and apparently being trafficked by either patients or v i s i t o r s---but not, according to most witnesses, by staff.
Witnesses said that clinics such as those dispensing methadone were
m eeting places for a large number of users and some dealers considered
them a good place to find contacts and clients. Some witnesses also
suggested drugs were sold at certain youth community centres.
TRAFFICKING AS A BUSINESS
Evidence clearly showed that as the incidence of illicit drug usage
in Australia has i n c r e a s e d , the general nature of drug trafficking has
c h a n g e d . Several law enforcement officers gave evidence to the effect
that while drug trafficking could once have been regarded as being
confined to small groups of people importing, growing or trafficking for their own use or that of friends, the situation had changed by the mid-
A277
1970s to one where 'the drug s c e n e 1 involved substantial numbers of
people and provided opportunities for immense tax-free profits. In
short, drug trafficking, at least in heroin and cannabis, had become
'big business 1 .
Considerable evidence was received concerning these 'business'
aspects of drug trafficking. Apart from the evidence already quoted on
'cutting', 'dealing' and prices, these aspects included:
- the a s s o ciation between heroin and cannabis trafficking;
- market manipulations;
- dealers actively 'pushing' drugs to recruit new customers;
- the amounts of cash handled by dealers;
- the increasing security measures taken by dealers, particularly at
the wholesale level;and
- the increasing incidence of violence.
Ass o c i a t i o n b etween Heroin and Cannabis Trafficking
Evidence already outlined indicated some traffickers who dealt only in cannabis did not regard themselves as drug traffickers because they
did not consider cannabis as particularly harmful.
Other traffickers also tended to specialise in one drug, but for
different reasons. Their specialisation might be because of their
knowledge of a particular supply source. It might be because they
considered that heroin was easier to conceal and offered more profits. It might be that they believed cannabis was a safer commodity because
law enforcement efforts concentrated more upon heroin and that penalties imposed for trafficking in cannabis could be less than for heroin.
Evidence concerning street dealers suggested that many of these
dealers, par t i c u l a r l y those who participated in regular trafficking, knew how to obtain drugs other than those in which they might be
trafficking at a particular time.
Evidence also indicated that there was a tendency for some low-level dealers to graduate from dealing in cannabis to dealing in heroin.
Several reasons were given by witnesses for this progression. They
included the ease of concealment of heroin and the corresponding
reduction in the risk of detection. Increased unit profit was also an
attraction.
Detective Sergeant D. J. Craft, Officer-in-Charge of the A.C.T.
Police Drug Squad, offered the following explanation:
...the individual who traffics in 'hard' drugs usually
commenced his activities as a dealer in cannabis, merely
prog r e s s i n g from one drug to another. This progression usually occurs after the supplier has been introduced to hard drugs
himself and becomes dependent. The cycle then repeats itself
when he in turn is impelled by his new dependence to make
A278
c o n t a c t s ... in order to guarantee his own supply as a user and,
inevitably, as a supplier.
(OT 228)
Detective Inspector G. D. Baker of the Victoria State Police Drug
Bureau commented that once a dealer had sold marihuana he would be
sufficiently familiar with the general drug situation to have a few
contacts and this would enable him to switch to another d r u g , such as
heroin (OT 2762).
The evidence showed that those wholesalers m o t ivated simply by greed would traffic in any drug if they judged market conditions to be
c o n d u c i v e . No conclusion can be made on the extent to which such
multiple who l e s a l e drug trafficking occurs.
Some indication of the incidence of multiple drug trafficking at
street level could be deduced from the evidence about drug users
referred to earlier in this chapter. The Commission noted that of the
55 users who had trafficked in drugs at some time, 16 had trafficked in
heroin only and 16 had trafficked only in cannabis. The remaining 2 3---
more than 40 per c e n t---had trafficked in various d r u g s . In at least
some instances those who trafficked in heroin had graduated from
cannabis to heroin u s e .
Artificial Cannabis 'Droughts'
Some evidence, particularly from users, suggested a marketing
relationship bet w e e n cannabis and heroin. However this evidence was
inconclusive. Several users alleged wholesale traffickers organised 'droughts' to induce marihuana users to switch to heroin and that it was
not unusual for heroin prices to be reduced during a cannabis 'd r o u g h t ' .
L a w enforcement officers for the most part believed that although such
shortages occurred from time to time they were not contrived by
traffickers but were due rather to interruptions in dealers' supplies
because of seasonal factors either in Australia or overseas or to law
enforcement efforts in the case of big s e i z u r e s .
Referring to possible market manipulations Mr R . J. Phillips,
E astern Region Commander of the Narcotics Bureau, said:
I have yet to see it in e v i d e n c e . I find that for the most
part any per s o n who is holding drugs is holding something which
m a y cause him a heavy gaol s e n t e n c e . It represents money and
the combination of both normally leads a person to get rid of
it as soon as possible in exchange for m o n e y .
I don't think we have reached the stage in this country where
that sort of manipulation is likely to happen except perhaps in
a local situation of which I am not aware.
(OT 9772C)
Detective Inspector G. D. Baker of the Victoria Police Drug Bureau
c o m m e n t e d :
...I do not go along with it (the artifical drought theory) for
two reasons, I do not know of any artificial drought that has
A279
been forced on the community in relation to Indian H e m p , and
also do not believe the type of person who smokes and abuses
Indian Hemp would necessarily be the type of person who would
switch to heroin simply because there is a shortage of Indian
H e m p . I think you are talking about two different a r e a s .
(OT 2765)
Other State police representatives gave similar e v i d e n c e , in several instances s u g gesting the cannabis market was supplied by so many
different s o u r c e s---variously described as 'amateurs' or 'small
p e o p l e '---that it would be virtually impossible to organise a market
manipulation.
The C o m m i s s i o n is not persuaded that the market is manipulated by
the deliberate creation of cannabis droughts.
'Pushing' Drugs to Potential Customers
Evidence from law enforcement officers and users and/or dealers
suggested that wholesalers motivated simply by greed did not care who
ultimately used their wares. So long as they could be sold and, if the
opportunity pr e s e n t e d itself, sold in increasing quantities, the
trafficker was content. This evidence suggested that some street
dealers were also interested in increasing 'business'. The heroin
dealer wants to ensure continuing finance for his or her own h a b i t .
Evidence suggests that many heroin traffickers with a hard core
addiction seek to increase business by any means possible so as to
ensure bigger profits with which to finance their own addiction. On the
other hand, some evidence indicates some cannabis users could see the
distribution of this drug as furthering a lifestyle philosophy.
Most users whom the Commission questioned about attempts to induce non-users to b u y drugs rejected the proposition. Some rejected it
protesting a moral or ethical view point and some for simply pragmatic
r e a s o n s .
A user who had trafficked in various drugs including heroin and
cannabis and was serving a gaol sentence for drug offences in New South
Wales stated in a confidential submission:
I w i s h to establish quite clearly that regardless of common
ass u m p t i o n regarding d e a l e r s , I for one certainly at no time,
forced or by any direct act influenced any one who had never
used m a r ihuana or for that matter any drug, into experimenting with, or acquiring the same.
(CT)
A Melbourne her o i n user referring to his experiences as a dealer
s a i d :
It's not hard to find people to sell drugs to. First, you must
u n d erstand that it's a big misconception that drug traffickers go out and procure people to take dr u g s---giving out drugs
w ithout charge to get them drawn into the scene. This
a b s olutely does not go on at all. When I was dealing, I had
people knocking on m y door day and night asking for d r u g s . You
don't have to talk anybody into using d r u g s . No dealer has
A280
enough to give any away for f r e e . Drugs are expensive and the
people wh o want it are prepared to pay.
(CT)
The Commission has no doubt that 'pushing' drugs does occur. The
principal limitation on 'pushing' is law enforcement activity. There
may be some dealers who refrain from 'pushing' for moral reasons.
Amounts of Cash Handled By Dealers
The evidence p r o v e d , as might be ex p e c t e d , that trafficking
involved exchanges of cash and that, as the scale of trafficking
increased so did the amounts of cash involved. The first Department of
Business and Consumer Affairs submission to the Commission in November 1977 referred to the significant increase in the incidence of large sums of money involved in trafficking and later evidence from other sources
supported this view. Examples of individual sums seized quoted by both
C o m m o nwealth and State law enforcement officers included amounts of
$28 000, $96 000, $280 000 (seized by Commonwealth law enforcement
o f f i c e r s ) , and sums of $5000, $11 530 and $23 000 seized by State law
enforcement officers. Detective Inspector G. D . Baker of the Victoria
State Police Drug Bureau commented that cash seizures associated with
drug offences in 1978 included one of more than $300 000.
S e curity Measures and Violence
Evidence clearly showed that as the scale of trafficking increased
so did the trafficker's need for increased security m e a s u r e s . These
security measures provided protection not only from law enforcement
efforts bu t also from other traffickers and criminals who might attempt a ' r i p - o f f either by cheating in a d e a l , extortion or simply b y theft.
The basic security precaution taken by most wholesalers was to avoid contact wi t h the drugs being bought and sold. This was discussed
earlier in this Chapter. Further examples given in evidence of how
large-scale traffickers attempted to preserve their anonymity included one cannabis wholesaler who changed his place of residence every three
months (0T 10869).
Other security measures taken by top echelon traffickers included attempts to corrupt law enforcement officers and enticements to low-
level associates to ensure their loyalty. Such enticements included
guarantees of bail if caught and briefings for couriers by lawyers on
wh a t to say if a p p r e h e n d e d .
The most serious aspect of the evidence concerning traffickers'
security measures was that given by law enforcement officers regarding the increasing incidence of violence associated wi t h trafficking. This aspect is discussed in Chapter 7 of this Part of the Report. Some
indication of the reasons for the concern expressed by law enforcement
officers is reflected in the evidence concerning drug-related murders given by the N S W Police Department in 1978 to the NS W Royal Commission
into Drug Trafficking (Open Exhibit No 622) and in August 1979 to this
Commission.
A281
This evidence listed the number of murders in N S W associated with
drug trafficking (as distinct from others which might have been
committed by people under the influence of drugs) as:
2 in 1976
4 in 1977
8 b etween April 1978 and August 1979.
A senior N S W police officer commented that no murders committed
between Ja n u a r y and April 1978 were known to be associated with drug
trafficking. He added, however, that of the murders committed in 1979,
one was associated with another two murders in Victoria.
EX T E N T OF TRAFFICKING
Lack of factual, substantiated evidence was very apparent when the Commission considered the question of the extent of drug trafficking in A u s t r a l i a .
Law enforcement officers and other witnesses from all States and
Territories with the exception of Tasmania (OT 1081) acknowledged that drug trafficking was increasing each year and was posing very real
problems for law enforcement b o d i e s . But no witness presented what
could be regarded as reliable estimates as to the extent of the problem,
part i c u l a r l y in a national sense.
A l though it was not possible to reach any firm conclusions about
either the extent of community involvement in drug trafficking or the
amount of drugs trafficked, the Commission attempted to use some of the
evidence it received to gain some insight into the matter, albeit with
mu c h the same reservations expressed elsewhere in this Report concerning the extent of illegal drug use and importation. The relationship
b etween the three is obvious.
Community Involvement
Statistics on the number of persons charged and the number of
charges preferred which related to drug trafficking in the years 1974 to 1977 were pre s e n t e d in evidence from the Commonwealth Police. Some of
these statistics are reproduced in Table I V . 1 0 . headed 'Age and Sex of
Offenders Charged with T r a f f i c k i n g ', and Table IV.ll 'Trafficking
Charges by Specific Drug Types'. (Unfortunately preliminary statistics for 1978 proved to have so many inaccuracies they could not be
considered reliable).
Statistics on the age and sex of drug offenders and other evidence
presented to the Commission showed that the majority of people charged
with trafficking were males between 18 and 30 years old. However
trafficking offenders came from most age groups in the community and
ranged from those under 17 years to those over 50 years. Not
A282
Table IV. 10
Age and Sex of Offenders Charged with Trafficking (1974 to 1977)
MALE
Age 1974 1975 1976 1977
Under 17 21 22 37 41
17 and 18 66 89 103 99
19 and 20 96 145 153 182
21 46 61 74 84
Over 21 152 306 372 497
Total 381 623 739 903
FEMALE
Age 1974 1975 1976 1977
Under 17 2 2 4 4
17 and 18 6 11 13 22
19 and 20 10 14 12 35
21 2 7 12 11
Over 21 16 22 39 46
Total 36 56 80 118
Total (All Offenders)
417 679 819 1021
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Surveys - 'Drug Abuse in Australia'.)
A283
T r a f f i c k i n g C h a r g e s b y S p e c i f i c D r u g T y p e s ( 1 9 7 4 t o 19 7 7 )
Table IV. 11
T y p e o f D r u g 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7
C a n n a b i s
P l a n t s - 11 17 35
S e e d s - 7 9 10
M a r i h u a n a 3 3 1 6 0 6 5 6 9 6 9 6
H a s h i s h ( C a n n a b i s R e s i n ) 7 48 8 9 63
C a n n a b i n o l 3 11 27 8
L i q u i d H a s h ( C a n n a b i s
O i l )
1 3 4 5
B u d d h a S t i c k s - - 51 61
T o t a l ( C a n n a b i s ) 3 4 2 6 8 6 7 6 6 8 7 8
H e r o i n 4 0 1 0 1 1 7 6 2 5 7
C o c a i n e 2 2 8 9
O p i u m - 2 5 3
M o r p h i n e 7 18 2 12
M e t h a d o n e 33 9 16 10
M a n d r a x 6 17 48 8 0
L S D 27 54 4 6 23
O t h e r s 4 0 27 69 6 0
T o t a l (All d r u g s ) 4 9 7 9 1 6 1 1 3 6 1 3 3 2
( S o u r c e : C o m m o n w e a l t h P o l i c e S t a t i s t i c a l S u r v e y s - ' D r u g A b u s e in A u s t r a l i a '.)
A284
surprisingly this pat t e r n was also evident among drug offenders in
g e n e r a l .
When considering the number of charges involving specific drug types it needs to be remembered that more than one charge could be laid
against the same offender. Thus, the 1977 statistics show that although 1021 people were charged wi t h trafficking o f f e n c e s , the number of
charges preferred totalled 1332.
Comparison w i t h other statistics concerning drug charges which are dealt with in the Chapters concerning illegal drug importation and use showed that in the case of cannabis and h e r o i n---the two drugs most
tra f f i c k e d---there was a higher p r o p ortion of trafficking offences in
relation to heroin than in relation to c a n n a b i s . In 1977, 11 per cent
of offences concerning heroin involved trafficking compared with only 5 p e r cent in the case of cannabis o f f e n c e s .
This appeared to confirm evidence from law enforcement officers and user/dealers suggesting heroin users were more likely to become
traffickers than cannabis users. Typical of this evidence was that of
Chief Inspector, W. L. Goedegebuure of the Northern Territory Police
who, after p ointing out the impossibility of a hard core heroin addict
supporting his habit lawfully, said:
This m e a n s , therefore, that associated with the escalating
heroin p roblem there is also a growing number of persons who
are p r epared to traffic in d r u g s . Whilst ever there are
persons who illegally use d r u g s , illegal trafficking in drugs
will continue and increase as users out of desperation for
money turn into drug pedlars.
(OT 5669)
In considering all of the above statistics the Commission noted that caution was needed in drawing any conclusions about the relationship
between the extent of detected trafficking and the actual extent of
trafficking. For many reasons those people detected as drug traffickers m a y not be representative of drug traffickers as a whole, either in
general terms or in relation to particular d r u g s . Some Commonwealth and State law enforcement officers, for e x a m p l e , told the Commission that
their activities had been directed increasingly towards illegal
activities involving so-called 'hard' drugs, such as heroin.
A nother factor which needs to be taken into consideration is one
already discussed in this Part and again in Chapter 7, The Organised
Basis of Drug-related Crime i. e .---large-scale traffickers go to extreme lengths to disguise their activities. Such traffickers could often be
people wi t h ho apparent connection with illegal d r u g s .
Q u antity of Drugs Trafficked
The Commission also searched for possible indications of the
quantity of drugs being trafficked in Australia. Again it became
A285
apparent that little of the evidence p r e s e n t e d , or indeed sought by the
Commission, could be used with confidence.
The Com m i s s i o n made broad calculations based on statistics supplied by the Comm o n w e a l t h Police and Bureau of Customs concerning drug
seizures. These calculations---and their limitations--- are discussed in Part IV, Cha p t e r 3 (Extent of Importation of Illegal D r u g s ) ; Chapter 6
(Term of Ref e r e n c e C: the Extent of Illegal Use of D r u g s , Illegal
D i v ersion of Drugs and Misuse of Drugs so far as is relevant to the
Illegal Use of D r u g s ) ; and in Chapter 7 (The Organised Basis of Drug-
related C r i m e ) .
In essence these calculations, which the Commission regards as no
more than br o a d indications, suggest the following amounts of heroin and cannabis could have entered the illegal drug market in Australia in
1978:
heroin
cannabis tops
cannabis resin
cannabis oil
900 kg to 1300 kg
35 to 52 tonnes
16 to 24 tonnes
655 to 977 kg.
But, as has already been discussed in Chapter 3, the significance of
these calculations is uncertain. In the case of heroin they assume
enough of the drug was supplied to support an estimated 14 200 to 20 300
u s e r s . In the case of cannabis they are based on assumption oi a
detection rate of 10 to 15 per cent which may, in fact, be much too
high.
The Commission has considered the amount of drugs of dependence
other than those dealt with above which are trafficked in Australia.
The evidence shows that, although the trafficked amount of these drugs
might be considerable, not a great deal is diverted to illegal use in
any one transaction. This makes it impossible in the Commission's view
to p ublish any estimates of the extent of trafficking in these drugs.
A286
Chapter 6 Term of Reference 6Câ The Extent of
(i) Illegal Use of Drugs
(ii) Illegal Diversion of Drugs
(iii) Misuse of Drugs so far as is Relevant to the Illegal Use of Drugs
It is very difficult to deal with this term of reference under the
three headings provided without encountering considerable overlap. Nevertheless the Chapter will be divided into three sections following the three questions asked by the term of reference.
EXTENT OF ILLEGAL USE OF DRUGS
This section is concerned with the extent of illegal use in the
Australian community as a who l e ---the extent of use in population subÂ
groups (e.g. the sexes, different age groups and different socioÂ
economic groups) is discussed in Part III, Illegal Use of Drugs.
Also for the purposes of this section, 'illegal use' is defined as
the use of any illegal drugs (e.g. cannabis, heroin) plus the use of any
legal drugs illegally obtained (e.g. from chemist robberies, forged
prescriptions, prescriptions obtained by false pretences). Thus, a
person who admits to abusing a legal drug lawfully obtained is not
considered an illegal user in this section. Abuse of legal drugs,
legally obtained, is discussed under Part III, Legal Use of Drugs.
The Commission did not receive sufficient information to enable it
to accurately estimate the extent of the illegal use of drugs in the
Australian community. The evidence presented was often localised, of
doubtful quality, or simply represented educated opinions. In many
cases, summation of information on the one topic from different sources was not possible because of different methods of preparation; in cases
of localised estimates, no accurate method of extrapolation could be
f o u n d .
As discussed in Part III this lack of accurate information is, in
part, related to the illegality of the activity. Individuals involved
are at pains to hide their illegal drug use in an attempt to avoid
apprehension. The major indicators of illegal drug usage are
necessarily limited to measures of the users who either come to the
attention of law enforcement agencies or to that of people involved in
the treatment of drug users, or who admit to their activities when
surveyed.
This section therefore considers what these indicators reveal on
the illegal use of the following drugs:
A287
* drugs in general
* cannabis
* narcotics
* hallucinogens
* cocaine
* barbiturates
* amphetamines
* metha q u a l o n e .
In order to do this the Commission considered those surveys
presented in evidence, information arising from offence statistics kept by police and opinions of persons with some expertise on the subject.
In addition, the Commission considered several other more
generalised indicators of illegal drug use. These areas included:
* drug seizure statistics
* methadone treatment programs
* drug overdose admissions to hospitals
* drug-related deaths
* incidence of serum hepatitis B
Drugs in General
The information on the extent of drug use available from surveys was summarised by Mrs J. M. Nolan, Acting Senior Executive Officer of the
Drugs of Dependence Section of the Commonwealth Department of Health. She quoted from the Estimates Committee C Report to the S e n a t e , November 1978, which stated:
There has been little research conducted in Australia on the
incidence of drug use and on measuring the impact of drug
education programs on the level of drug abuse. The department
has collated the findings of drug use surveys but has been
unable to draw reliable conclusions because of the sparsity of survey work and the lack of comparable data in the work that
has been done.
(OT 20402)
Only one of the surveys considered by the Commission attempted to
identify the proportion of people in a general population sample who had used illegal drugs.
A288
This survey, the Gallup Poll (Australian Public Opinion Polls.
McNair An d e r s o n Associates Pty. L t d . ) (Open Exhibit 680), surveyed 2,053 people during Ma r c h 1978. This survey found that the percentage of
people who admitted to having tried 'marihuana or any of the hard drugs
like heroin, hashish or cannabis' was 11 per c e n t . This result should,
h o w e v e r , be used wi t h caution. In particular, the lack of complete
information on the sampling methodology, the use of emotive words such
as 'hard drugs' and inclusion of cannabis in the term 'hard drugs'
detracts from the reliability of the r e s u l t . It would also seem
confusing to require the respondent to classify marihuana separately
from c a n n a b i s .
A nother m easure of Australians who have illegally used drugs is the
statistics for offenders charged by police o f f i c e r s . The Australian
figures for persons charged with unlawful p o s session or unlawful
use/administration for each of the calendar years 1974â 1978 are given
in Table IV.12-
Table I V . 1 2 : National Totals for Offenders Charged wi t h Possession or Use/Administration of Narcotics, Cannabis or Psychotropic S u b s t a n c e s .
Offence 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Unlawful Possession 4296 7194 8880 10 264 6833
Unlawful Use/ Administration 2355 4253 5082 5 507 1652
Note: Some individuals could have been charged with an offence in each
category.
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical S urveys---'Drug Abuse in
A u s t r a l i a ').
The figures in Table I V . 12 could be slightly inflated due to
recidivism. But, as these statistics underestimate the total number of people who have illegally used drugs, this problem is of little
consequence for our purpose h e r e . A lthough the figures in Table I V . 12
show a marked increase for each year to 1977, such increases need not
n e c e ssarily reflect similar increases in the number of illegal users in the community. Increased police activity, increased police expertise and changing drug policies of the police forces could also be
responsible. In view of the figures released for the years 1974 to
1977, the 1978 figure may be s u s p e c t .
A number of professional witnesses were of the opinion that illegal
drug use in the community was on the increase. For example, Mr R. J .
Kidney, Director of the Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services of
South Australia Inc. stated in evidence in March 1978 that his
organisation ha'd come into contact with more users of drugs compared
with two years ago. He further stated:
A289
Fo r instance, in our post release houses it seems that
a pproximately 25% of present residents have had some experience wi t h drugs. Some of these would be current problems while
others have only experimented and p assed through those stages.
(OT 6813)
One witness from South Australia believed that drug use was not
increasing among young people. Mr M. Kau, the Director of Services to
Yo u t h Council Inc. in Adelaide explained in March 1978:
We have been monitoring drug related problems very closely at
least for the past five years and probably not so intensely for
the previous 15 to that. We get upset about reports in the
press about the drug problem increasing. No w if the drug
pr o b l e m is increasing then we would expect that this increase
would be reflected in our case r e c o r d s , and yet I have
g r a p h s .. .which demonstrate that at no time over the past 18
months has the percent of drug related problems of all of our
cases exceeded 13%, and in fact it varies from 2% to 13%.
(OT 6956--S7)
Evidence suggested that the extent of illegal use in Tasmania was
not as high as in the other States of Australia. Dr T. H. G. Dick, the
T a smanian Government Director of Forensic Psychiatry, explained:
I think that we're half way (in our cities here) between an
urban and a rural type of population and the utilisation of
drugs tends to follow a proportional pattern to concentrations of population, as you would expect. Therefore in the urban
areas drugs are more prolifically used than in rural o n e s .
Here in Tasmania overall we are a rural population
p reponderantly and so our drug problem is not presently nearly as serious as it is in other areas of the Commonwealth. It is
a fairly small but fairly steadily increasing problem as I see
it.
(OT 4199)
Cannabis
Five of the surveys examined by the Commission have attempted to
identify the pro p o r t i o n of people in general population samples who have used m a r i h u a n a . The results of these surveys are summarised in Table
I V . 13.
'Drug Use in Adelaide 1978' is a most informative survey. Aspects
of the m e t h odology and sampling of the other surveys limit the
reliability and application of the results. Bearing in mind these
limitations, the data from these s t u d i e s , suggests that between 12 and
15 per cent of persons over the age of 14 years have used m a r i h u a n a ,
while about 5 per cent of the same group could be regarded as current
users. All studies supported the idea of much heavier contact with the
drug in the yo u n g e r age groups especially those aged between 18 and 30
y e a r s .
A290
Table IV.13 C o m p a r i s o n of M a r i h u a n a S u r v e y s b a s e d o n G e n e r a l P o p u l a t i o n S a m p l e s
S u r v e y
Y e a r
C a r r i e d
O u t
A r e a
C o v e r e d
No. of
P e o p l e
S u r v e y e d
A g e
H a d
E v e r
U s e d %
C u r r e n t
U s e r s %
M a n l y S t u d y
b y A. G e o r g e
1971 M a n l y ,
N . S . W .
6 3 9 14-65 9 4
M o r g a n G a l l u p
P o l l (b)
1977 A u s t r a l i a 2 207 14 &
o v e r
12 -
D r u g U s e in
A d e l a i d e 1 978
(a)
1978 A d e l a i d e 2 9 2 8 13-60 15 6
' A g e ' O p i n i o n
P o l l (c)
1 978 V i c t o r i a 1702 18 &
o v e r
17 5
A . N . U . C a n  b e r r a P o p u l a Â
t i o n S u r v e y
(d), (e)
1978 C a n b e r r a 178 15-39 30 5
N o t e :
(a) T h i s s u r v e y w a s c a r r i e d o u t f o r t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n i n t o
t h e N o n - M e d i c a l U s e of D r ugs.
(b) T h i s s u r v e y d i d n o t e x a m i n e c u r r e n t use.
(c) A l t h o u g h 5 0 0 0 i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e s e n t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , o n l y 1702 (34%)
r e s p o n d e d .
(d) T h i s f i g u r e is c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r t h a n t h e o t h e r e s t i m a t e s . T h i s is p a r t i Â
a l l y d u e to t h e y o u n g e r a g e g r o u p q u e s t i o n e d . See P a r t I I I f o r a d i s c u s s i o n
of m a r i h u a n a u s e b y v a r i o u s a g e grou p s .
(e) T h i s s u r v e y d i d n o t q u e s t i o n c u r r e n t u se; it d i d a s k if m a r i h u a n a h a d b e e n
u s e d i n the w e e k a n d a l s o t h e m o n t h p r i o r to the s u r v e y . T h e s a m e n u m b e r of
r e s p o n d e n t s (5%) h a d u s e d t h e d r u g in t h e p a s t w e e k a n d i n t h e p a s t m o n t h .
( S o u r c e s : O p e n E x h i b i t s 182, 672, 680, 680, 37 r e s p e c t i v e l y . )
A291
Law enforcement officers throughout Australia were almost all of the opinion that the use of cannabis was both widespread and increasing.
Their evidence suggested the stronger derivatives of th e cannabis p l a n t , namely cannabis resin and cannabis o i l , were not as p o p u l a r as the leaf
form. F u r t h e r m o r e , cannabis use was not restricted to those people in
their late teens and early twenties. It had permeated through the whole
strata of A u s t r a l i a n society. Commander R. J. Phillips of the Narcotics Bureau considered that the growing popularity of cannabis with older
people would ensure future growth in the abuse of this drug (OT 9779).
Several witnesses estimated the number of cannabis users in their
areas of involvement. Unfortunately, the Commission di d not receive an estimate for each State. Witnesses who did give estimates included:
* Mr A. W. Parsons, Director of the Cannabis R e search Foundation. He
said the cannabis market in Australia had catered for some 2 million Australians and supplied 400 000 regular users (OT 2466).
* Dr C. Sprague, Leadership Training Co-ordinator from the self-help
r ehabilitation organisation GROW. She stated:
In Australia it has been estimated that 500 000 people have
used or are using Cannabis (NSW Health C o m mission 1977). This
represents about 4 per cent of the population, and, compared
w i t h certain other c o u n t r i e s , a very low figure.
(0T 11325)
* Dr M. S. Y. Dalton, Director of Addiction Services and Mr D . W.
Duncan, a social worker, both from the Westmead Co m m u n i t y Centre for Alcohol and Drug Addicts, New South Wales. They stated in evidence
also given to the South Australian Royal Commission into the N o n Â
Medical Use of Drugs that the number of regular users of marihuana
aged from 15 to 50 years in South Australia in Ma y 1977 'would be
around 25 000' (OT 10675). This estimate represents 4 per cent of
the South Australian population aged between 15 and 50 at the time
of their evidence. (From the Australian Bureau of Statistics).
* A s sistant Commissioner Calder of the South A u s t ralian Police. He
considered in August 1977 that there would be at least 10 000
cannabis users in South Aus t r a l i a---a much lower estimate than that of Dr Da l t o n and Mr Duncan. This estimate was also given in
evidence to the South Australian Royal Commission into the N o n Â
Medical Us e of Drugs. 10 000 users represents 1.5 p e r cent of the
South A u s t r a l i a n population aged from 15 to 50 (OT 8389).
Mr J. A. Travers, a Chief Investigator of the Narcotics Bureau. He
estimated, in his evidence to this Commission in November 1977 that between 5 and 10 per cent of the population of Western Australia had
used cannabis (OT 635). This estimate would indicate that between
60 000 and 120 000 people had used cannabis in that State.
- Inspector T. W. Cashion of the Tasmanian Police Dr u g Bureau. He
estimated in December 1977 that between 2500 and 3000 people were
involved in illegal drug use and that the majority of these persons
used cannabis (OT 1087). He said that this figure excluded one
A292
time experimenters and very infrequent users. This e s t i m a t e ,
again based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures, represents between 0.8 and 1.0 per cent of the Tasmanian p o p ulation aged 15 and
o v e r .
.Table I V . 14 shows the number of charges (not individual off e n d e r s ) of possession or use/administration involving cannabis for Australia from 1974 to 1978. As one offender can be charged with more than one
offence (either at the same time or at various times in the same y e a r ) ,
these figures over-estimate the number of individuals c h a r g e d . The
figures still, however, substantially underestimate the total number of users, since only a small percentage of users come to the attention of
law enforcement o f f i c e r s .
Narcotics
Although heroin is the major narcotic drug illegally used, other
narcotics involved include m e t h a d o n e , morphine, dextromoramide (Palfium) and pethidine. Cocaine, for the purposes of this section, is not
included as a narcotic but is discussed under the heading 'Other Drugs'.
Only two of the general population surveys mentioned above covered
the use of narcotics. The size of these responses was so small,
h o w e v e r , that the figures are of little value other than to indicate
that in both s u r v e y s , very few narcotic users responded.
Table IV . 14
Charges of Pos s e s s i o n or Use/Administration involving Cannabis
Drug Type 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Plants 204 533 737 1148 1815
Seeds 103 943 1101 1176 1186
Marihuana 5610 9351 9886 11 798 7328
Hashish 136 420 1084 562 276
Cannabinol 16 55 106 78 94
Hashish Liquid 20 25 58 71 232
Buddha Sticks -(a) -(a) 550 730 921
Total . 6089 11 327 13 522 15 563 11 852
N o t e :
(a) Not given. ,
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Surveys - 'Drug Abuse in A u s t r a l i a '.)
A293
Various professional workers involved in drug circles supplied
estimates to the Commission on the number of illegal users of narcotics
in general and the number of heroin users in particular. Their
estimates are summarised in Tables I V . 15 and I V . 16. Although witnesses spoke in terms of 'users' and 'hard core addicts', no witness attempted
to define these t e r m s . Some estimates of users may include infrequent
users or experimenters, others may have been restricted to regular
u s e r s . Similarly, the definition of a hard core addict may have
differed from one estimate to another. Accordingly, the figures from
different witnesses are not directly comparable.
Dr G. Milner based his estimate shown in Table IV.15 on the
assumption that about 15 per cent of regular narcotic users presented
for treatment in Victoria in any one y e a r . Using this assumption,
Victoria would have approximately 5000 regular narcotic u s e r s . Dr
Milner did not consider this figure as over-representing the situation (Open E xhibit 168).
A nother method of estimating the number of illegal narcotic users
w a s devised by Dr M. Baden, Deputy Medical Examiner of N e w York City
(Open Exhibit 622). Dr Baden multiplied the number of users who die
from n a r cotics by 100. This method gives only an approximate measure,
but w h e n applied in the data given later in this chapter (see Table
IV.2 2 ) gives the following estimates of the number of users in 1977:
. 4200 in Ne w South Wales,
. 700 in Q u e e n s l a n d ,
. 1100 in Western Australia and
. 400 in the Northern Territory.
Again, no indication of what the term 'user' e n c o m p a s s e s , was given. W i t h the exception of New South Wales, these estimates are generally
lower than the estimates of users discussed in Tables I V . 15 and I V . 16
but are of a similar magnitude. The New South Wales f i g u r e , h o w e v e r ,
falls far short of the previous user estimate and is even somewhat lower
than the estimates of hard core addicts appearing in these tables (i.e. 7000--10 000).
The Commission also attempted to estimate the possible number of
'hard c o r e ' heroin addicts in A u s t r a l i a . 'Hard c o r e ' was the term most
frequently used by witnesses to denote true addiction. Using seizure
data together with other evidence which included data on mean dosage
rates and purity, the Commission estimated that in 1978 there may have
been between 14 200 and 20 300 hard core heroin addicts in A u s t r a l i a .
The Com m i s s i o n noted that both the South Australian Royal Commission into the N o n - Medical Use of Drugs and the Ne w South Wales Royal
Commission into Drug Trafficking used the 'Indicator Dilution M e t h o d ' in their attempts to estimate the number of heroin addicts in their
respective States. Unfortunately, suitable data necessary for these
calculations on a national basis was not available.
A294
Professional Estimates of the Number of Illegal Users of Narcotics
N o . o f h a r d
c o r e a d d i c t s
D r M . S . Y . D a l t o n a n d M r D . W . D u n c a n o f W e s t m e a d C o m m u n i t y A u s t r a l i a 24.. 4 . 1 9 7 8
C e n t r e f o r A l c o h o l a n d D r u g A d d i c t s . ( O T 1 0 7 1 2 )
N e w S o u t h
W a l e s
24.. 4 . 1 9 7 8
A c o n f i d e n t i a l w i t n e s s f r o m t h e N S W D r u g a n d A l c o h o l
A u t h o r i t y .
N e w S o u t h
W a l e s
25. 5 . 1 9 7 8
D r G. M i l n e r , I n s p e c t o r a n d D i r e c t o r o f A l c o h o l i c s a n d
D r u g D e p e n d e n t P e r s o n s S e r v i c e s B r a n c h , V i c t o r i a n D e p a r t Â
m e n t o f H e a l t h . ( O p e n E x h i b i t 1 68)
V i c t o r i a 23. 1 . 1 9 7 8
S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n i n t o t h e N o n - M e d i c a l U s e
o f D r u g s , f i n a l r e p o r t . ( O p e n E x h i b i t 5 86)
S o u t h
A u s t r a l i a
A p r i l 1 9 7 9
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t M c A u l a y o f t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n P o l i c e .
( O T 8 4 1 8 C ) (b)
A d e l a i d e 25. 8 . 1 9 7 7
M r J . A . T r a v e r s , C h i e f I n v e s t i g a t o r , N a r c o t i c s B u r e a u ,
W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a . ( O T 6 3 4 )
W e s t e r n
A u s t r a l i a
30. 1 1 . 1 9 7 7
I n s p e c t o r T . W . C a s h i o n o f t h e T a s m a n i a n D r u g B u r e a u .
(OT 1 0 8 7 )
T a s m a n i a 13. 1 2 . 1 9 7 7
5 0 0 0 0
2 3 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 ( a )
5 0 0 0
5 0 0 Â
1 5 0 0
4 0 0
2000
6 0 Â
100
S i s t e r P . M . M o r i a r t y , C o - o r d i n a t o r o f A . C . T . D r u g R e f e r r a l A . C . T . 3. 9 . 1 9 7 9
a n d I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t r e . ( O T 2 3 6 5 0 )
4 7 5
(a) T h e s e f i g u r e s w e r e t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e N e w S o u t h W a l e s J o i n t P a r l i a m e n t a r y C o m m i t t e e o n D r u g s , q u o t e d b y t h i s w i t n e s s .
(b) T h i s e v i d e n c e w a s a l s o g i v e n t o t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n i n t o t h e N o n - M e d i c a l U s e o f D r u g s .
Professional Estimates of the Number of Heroin Users
W i t n e s s
S u b j e c t o f D a t e E s t i m a t e
E s t i m a t e G i v e n
N o . o f
Users
N o . o f h a r d
c o r e a d d i c t s
A c o n f i d e n t i a l w i t n e s s f r o m a d r u g d e p e n d e n c e c l i n i c ,
Q u e e n s l a n d .
A s o c i a l w o r k e r f r o m B e n d i g o , i n c o n f i d e n c e .
M r J . L . D a v i s , S e n i o r P h a r m a c i s t w i t h t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n
H e a l t h C o m m i s s i o n . ( O T 8 1 4 3 ) (a)
D r B. T a y l o r , M e d i c a l O f f i c e r , A l c o h o l a n d D r u g D e p e n d Â
e n c e S e c t i o n , H i l l c r e s t H o s p i t a l , S o u t h A u s t r a l i a .
( O T 8 1 1 9 ) (a)
D r G . I . T e w f i k , P s y c h i a t r i s t . ( O T 9 6 5 - 6 6 )
D r G . H . G u r d , D i r e c t o r o f H e a l t h , N . T . D i v i s i o n , C o m m o n Â
w e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h . ( O T 5 8 7 5 ) (b)
M s K . H . C r i d l a n d , P s y c h o l o g i s t a t D a r w i n H o s p i t a l .
( O T 6 0 8 6 - 8 7 )
B r i s b a n e
B e n d i g o ,
V i c t o r i a
S o u t h
A u s t r a l i a
S o u t h
A u s t r a l i a
W e s t e r n
A u s t r a l i a
D a r w i n
D a r w i n
2 8 . 2 . 1 9 7 8
8. 6 . 1 9 7 8
2 4 . 8 . 1 9 7 7
2 4 . 8 . 1 9 7 7
5 . 1 2 . 1 9 7 7
8. 3 . 1 9 7 8
9. 3 . 1 9 7 8
A c o n f i d e n t i a l w i t n e s s f r o m t h e C o m m o n w e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t A . C . T . 2 1 . 1 2 . 1 9 7 7
o f H e a l t h .
1200
2 0 0 2 0 - 3 0
1000
6 0 0
1 0 0 0 t o
2000
5 0 0 t o 1 0 0 - 1 5 0
1000
4 0 i n w e t
s e a s o n
3 0 0 i n d r y
s e a s o n
3 - 4
(a) A l s o g i v e n a s e v i d e n c e t o t h e S o u t h A u s t r a l i a n R o y a l C o m m i s s i o n i n t o t h e N o n - M e d i c a l U s e o f D r u g s .
(b) T h i s e s t i m a t e w a s a c t u a l l y t a k e n f r o m a p a p e r b y M r T . I . P a u l i n g , a N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y S t i p e n d i a r y M a g i s t r a t e .
Opinions expressed by law enforcement officers at both open and
confidential sessions of the Commission indicated quite clearly that the abuse of heroin was increasing rapidly in most States although its use
was still small wh e n compared to cannabis.
Table I V .17 shows the number of charges of possession or
use/administration involving narcotics in Australia for each of the five years 1974 to 1978. These statistics relate to charges and not the
individuals charged; accordingly, while they are an inflated estimate of the number of narcotic users charged by police officers, these
figures still underestimate the total number of illegal narcotic u s e r s .
Once again, the figures shown in Table I V . 17 should be interpreted
with caution. The offences need not necessarily relate to people who
only use that type of d r u g ; multiple drug use is no doubt involved in a
significant number of cases. In addition, an increase in the number of
offences from one year to another need not necessarily indicate an
increase in the number of users or the extent of illegal u s e . In some
cases these figures result from increased police activity against
abusers using a particular d r u g .
Other Drugs
Only two of the general population surveys mentioned previously
covered the illegal use of drugs other than the narcotics or c a n n a b i s ,
and these surveys restricted their investigations to the hallucinogens. Again, as wi t h the surveys on narcotic u s e , the results are too small to
be of any real use and only indicate that in both s u r v e y s , ve r y few
h a l l u cinogen users r e s p o n d e d .
Table IV.17
Charges of Possession or Use/Administration involving Narcotic Drugs
Drug 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Heroin 247 774 1592 1866 2510
Methadone 43 38 118 112 79
(Physeptone)
Morphine 199 130 66 65 64
Opium 43 29 23 36 18
Dextromoramide 41 52 63 104 16
(Palfium)
Pethidine 55 49 42 49 85
Others 17 25 12 20 42
Total 645 1097 1916 2252 2814
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Surveys - 'Drug Abuse in Australia1).
A297
A nu m b e r of professional witnesses commented on the extent of
illegal use of drugs other than the narcotics or c a n n a b i s . These
comments are summarised below.
Ev i d e n c e from law enforcement officers throughout Australia
indicated that the current use of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was
either almost non-existent or, at the very w o r s t , quite small.
Dr M. S. Y. Dalton, Director of Addiction Services and Mr D. W.
Duncan a social worker, both from the Westmead Community Centre for
Alcohol and Drug Addicts in Ne w South Wales, estimated the extent of
illegal usage of hallucinogens in the following terms:
H a l l u c i n o g e n i c s---Basically nowadays extracts from mushrooms etc. with occasional minor epidemics of LSD (locally
manufactured) a b u s e . We estimate the number of constant users in Australia of being around 10 000 with around 6000 of these
resident in NSW with a proportionately higher representation in n orthern N S W and Queensland due to favourable climate.
(OT 10712)
Law enforcement officers generally considered that although cocaine use in Australia was quite rare in 1979 its abuse could soon rise quite
rapidly. A retired member of the Victorian Police Drug Squad, pointed
out in confidential evidence that arrests made in 1977 included three
traffickers in cocaine. These were the first arrests for offences
involving cocaine for 35 years in Victoria. Several witnesses referred to the recent increase in the use of cocaine in overseas countries such
as the United States and Canada (particularly in the higher socioÂ
economic groups) and predicted that this trend could soon reach
A u s t r a l i a .
New South Wales police officers commented in late 1978 that much of
the cocaine offered for sale in their State had been f o u n d , upon
analysis, to actually be lignocaine, Novacain or p r o c a i n e---all of which are synthetic substitutes for cocaine (Open Exhibit 622).
Evidence from law enforcement officers and health officials
suggested that the illegal use of amphetamines may now be of only minor
significance. They considered that in the late 1960s, the diversion and illegal use of amphetamine drugs was quite fashionable but these drugs
had not been readily available since about 1972.
Law enforcement officers considered that the illegal use of
m e t h a q u a l o n e , in particular Mandrax, had increased significantly over the last five years. As one informed witness told the Commission, 'The
abuse of this drug is reaching alarming proportions'. It was said that
this increased abuse was due in part to heroin users regularly turning
to Mandrax when narcotics were in short supply.
A298
Table IV.18
Charges of Possession or Use/Administration involving Drugs other than Narcotics or Cannabis
Drug 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
LSD 166 258 227 114 -
Other Hallucinogens 46 128 123 103 108
Cocaine 34 74 86 80 49
Mandrax 59 201 298 499 143
Other Hypno-sedatives (incl. Barbiturates) 19 46 41 109 213
Amphetamines 49 43 68 100 92
Tranquillisers 19 28 40 47 104
Antidepressants - 1 4 3 5
Other Drugs 187 11 26 60 62
Total 579 790 913 1115 776
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Surveys - 'Drug Abuse in Australia1).
A299
Table I V . 18 shows the number of charges of possession or
use/administration involving drugs other than narcotics or cannabis for each of the five years 1974 to 1978. Again these figures relate to
charges and not the number of individuals c h a r g e d .
As with the previous police statistics regarding o f f e n c e s , these
figures shown in Table I V . 18 overstate the number of offenders charged, but underestimate the number of illegal users. In addition, caution
should be exercised when attempting to draw conclusions from these
f i g u r e s . A n increase in the number of charges relating to a particular
drug could well be due to increased police activity rather than an
increase in illegal use.
Seizures of Drugs by Law E n f o rcement Officers
As stated earlier in this chapter, one might expect that seizures of
drugs by law enforcement officers would provide an indication of drug
use. The data presented to the Commission, however, proved to be
hopelessly inaccurate and vir t u a l l y impossible to use for any
constructive p u r p o s e .
At the time of the Commission's h e a r i n g s , the Australian Crime
Intelligence Centre of the Commonwealth Police was responsible for the compilation and analysis of data on drug seizures by all law enforcement organisations in Australia. The results of each year's compilation and analysis are p r esented in the Commonwealth Police publication entitled
'Drug Abuse in A u s t r a l i a '.
While the 1978 edition of 'Drug Abuse in A u s t r a l i a ' had yet to be
published at the time of writing this Report, selected data had been
released to the international police organisation I n t e r p o l , the United Nations and this Commission. These figures form the basis for Table
I V . 19.
Following consideration of the d a t a---which included comparison of the 1978 data with the data for previous y e a r s---the Commission raised
several queries with the then Commonwealth Police regarding the accuracy of the data on a number of d r u g s . Some of the released data appeared to
be either obviously incorrect or represented a dramatic change in
seizure trends and, t h e r e f o r e , p o ssibly even drug use trends within the community. Several significant corrections were then made to the
released data by Commonwealth Police. Details of these corrections are as follows:
the original figure for the weight of cocaine seized was 14 208.183
g m s . After being queried by the Commission, this figure fell to
93.966 gms, a decrease of over 99 per c e n t .
the original figure for the number of dose units of LSD seized was
94 484. The revised figure was only 5935, a drop of almost 94 per
c e n t .
A300
A u s t r a l i a n D r u g S e i z u r e R e p o r t f o r 1 9 7 8
(Values in parentheses are numbers of seizures)
W e i g h t P l a n t s
C o c a i n e 9 3 . 9 6 6 (12)
C o d e i n e - 1 2 2 9 . 0 0 0 (3)
D e x t r o m o r a m i d e
( P a l f i u m )
2 . 0 0 0 (1)
D i e t h y l t h i a m b u t e n e 3 . 5 8 0 (1)
E t o r p h i n e 1.000 (1)
H y d r o m o r p h o n e
( D i l a u d i d )
M e t h a d o n e
( P h y s e p t o n e )
2 8 0 . 7 0 0 (6)
M o r p h i n e 2 5 . 0 0 0 (4)
M o r p h i n e t e c h 1 0 . 0 0 0 (1)
O p i u m 2 3 7 6 . 9 4 0 ( I D 1 3 0 (2)
O p i u m p r e p s .
P e t h i d i n e 9 . 0 0 0 (2)
P a p a v e r e t u m
P e n t a z o c i n e
( F o r t r a l )
H e r o i n 23 7 9 2 . 9 6 1 (651)
C a n n a b i s P l a n t s 17 9 3 4 . 2 4 0 (17) 3 3 6 7 4 9 ( 1 234)
C a n n a b i s S e e d s 5 8 6 6 . 1 6 0 (144)
M a r i h u a n a 6 1 1 2 8 0 5 9 . 0 0 0 ( 2467)
9 (4)
7 5 6 (8)
1 8 0 (2)
7 5 7 (17)
1 9 (3) 9 7 (11) 18 (2)
5 (1)
2 (1) 1 2 0 4 (235)
T a b l e t s A m p o u l . e s C a p s u l e s ^ £ £ £
4 (3)
1 5 2 (12)
2 0 7 (25)
6 6 5 (87)
1 8 5 (3)
3 (1)
1 0 9 (1)
2 5 (3)
6 7 (5)
1 1 (3)
10 (1)
200 (1)
3 2 1 (17)
2 5 2 (21)
6 (1 )
3 6 (1)
7 5 0 6 1 (49 3 )
Tab le I V. 19 ( c o nt . )
Dr ug
We ig ht
( 9)
Plant s
( number)
S e eds
( number)
Tabl e t s Ampo ul e s Ca ps ul e s
Do s e
Unit s
Bud dha
s tic ks
Di az e p am ( Valium) 259 ( 15)
Oxaz e p am ( Serepax) 1 4 . 1 7 0 ( 1) 1 8 9 3 ( 11)
Ot he r t ranqui llis e r s 10 ( 1)
I mipramine ( Tofranil) 4 8 ( 1)
Ot he r Ant id e pr e s s ant s 3 ( 1)
L S D 1 4 . 0 0 0 ( 3) 1 0 6 34 ( 14)
Ps ilo c ybine 1 0 5 0 . 3 0 0 ( 16) 21 9 ( 17)
D MT 9 0 8 ( 1)
Ot he r mus hro o ms 25 ( 2)
S T P 6 . 0 5 0 ( 2) 36 ( 2)
Ot he r halluc ino ge ns 4 . 0 0 0 ( 1)
Ot he r drugs 1 3 . 4 5 0 ( 3) 4 4 2 ( 15)
53 ( 4) 5 ( 1)
2 (1)
59 3 5 ( 68)
4 ( 1)
1 1 ( 2) 16 8 ( 6)
( S o urc e : Dra ft Co mmo nwe a lt h Po lic e S t at is t ic al S urve y - 1 Drug Abus e in Aus t ra li a 1 9 7 8 1)
* the original figure for the n u m b e r of LSD tablets seized was 2 193.
The revised figure was 10 634, an increase of 385 p e r cent.
The revised 1978 data for cocaine (93.966 grams) and LSD dose units
(5935) compares s a tisfactorily w i t h 556.086 grams and 5376 dose units
respectively, in 1977. Ho w e v e r the data on the n u m b e r of LSD tablets
still represents a dramatic change wi t h an increase o f 10 177 tablets
over the 1977 figure of 457 tablets and the a c c u r a c y of this figure may
still be q u e s t i o n a b l e . While Table I V . 19 presents the revised data on
1978 seizures provided by the Commonwealth Police the data included in
that tabulation as the weight of liquid hashish (40 373.025 grams) is
considered to be incorrect since the Commission's a nalysis of seizure
data reported b y the Narcotics Bureau alone accounted for 97 731.2 grams of cannabis oil (liquid hashish).
Comments published in almost all editions of the publication 'Drug
Abuse in A u s t r a l i a ' since 1971 revealed that the data was known by the
A u s t r a l i a n Crime Intelligence Centre of the C o m m o n w e a l t h Police to be an inaccurate or at least incomplete statement of the q u a n t i t i e s of drugs
seized by all law enforcement authorities in A ustralia. Two examples of these com m e n t s---one of which refers to a tabulation con c e r n i n g seizure d a t a---a r e :
The actual quantities of drugs seized or r e c overed from the
illicit market are difficult to determine for a number of
r e a s o n s .
Firstly, there were 352 seizures reported to the Centre in
which no quantity of drugs was stated.
Secondly, in many cases, the stated q u a ntities were based on
estimates made by law enforcement officers w h o did not have
access to accurate means of weighing the drugs seized.
Similarly, when large numbers of tablets, cap s u l e s or ampoules were recovered, only an estimate of the actual n u m b e r was given
in most reports supplied to the Centre. The field officers
concerned simply do not have time to count a c c u r a t e l y all drugs
seized. In dealing with marihuana, the unit o f t e n cited is the
'match box full'; this is a 'dealer's ounce', b u t in fact does
not necessarily weigh one o u n c e , as the m a r i h u a n a could be
mixed with contaminants such as tobacco.
(Open Exhibit 42, 1971 Edition)
It can be seen from Table A19(ii) that there we r e literally
thousands of reported seizures for which n o quantity, or
estimate of quantity was submitted to the ACIC. This year, for
the second time, an attempt has been made to es t i m a t e those
seizures for which the q uantity would have b e e n small i.e. less
than 50 g r a m s . It can be seen that there were still over 1018
seizures for which this was not possible. Thus, the true
A304
quantity of seized drugs is unknown and is undoubtedly
s u b s t a n t i a l , bearing in mind the quantities stated in Table
A 1 9 ( i i ) .
(Open Exhibit 42, 1977 Edition)
Evidence p r e sented in 1977 by Mr B . C. Maclachlan the Statistical
Officer of the Commonwealth Department of Administrative Services
included a departmental report on the drug seizure collection system and the analysis of data presented in the 1976 edition of 'Drug Abuse in
A u s t r a l i a '. This report stated that the main problems were accuracy
and/or incompleteness of data and presentation of data:
The main problems evident in the current drug statistics system a r e : (1) accuracy and/or incompleteness of data; (2)
presentation of data. The most important problem is clearly
that of accuracy and/or incompleteness of data. The main
deficiency appears to occur in the information on the quantity
of drug seized.
(OT 312)
The problems evident in the 1978 seizure data released to the
Commission by the Commonwealth Police would appear to suggest that the
ma j o r problems that were mentioned in the departmental report in 1977
were still in existence.
The Commission also found difficulties when attempting to use this
seizure data to measure the extent of use of drugs in Australia. As
well as the incompleteness and inaccuracy of data previously mentioned, the following difficulties also arose:
* The presentation of the data changes over the years 1971 to 1978.
For e x a m p l e , in 1971 data was presented for Customs and each State
Police while in 1978 it was presented in the form of national
t o t a l s .
* The quantity of each drug seized was reported in various measures
such as weight in gra m s , number of plants, number of seeds, number
of buddha sticks, tablets, ampoules, capsules and dose units. As a
result it is almost impossible to determine the quantity of drug
seized in any one measure.
* Not all seizures were being reported to the Commonwealth Police unit
responsible for the collection of data on drug seizures.
Despite the limitations of this data, the Commission has attempted
to estimate the possible number of hard-core heroin addicts in
Australia. As outlined earlier in this chapter, the seizure data was
used together with other evidence which included data on mean dosage
rates and purity.
Methadone Treatment Programs
As methadone is used as a 'surrogate' drug for the narcotics, and in
particular heroin, the Commission attempted to use information on
A305
methadone treatment programs as an indication of the extent of the
illegal use of narcotics, in par t i c u l a r heroin.
No comprehensive figures on the number of people attending methadone treatment programs were available to the Commission. Those involved in the a d m i n i stration of these programs do not appear to maintain
comprehensive statistics. An y figures maintained are generally only for in-house p u r p o s e s . Accordingly, the criteria for the information
recorded v a r y from one p rogram to another, and the Commission found it
impossible to make any meaningful comparisons b etween the different
f i g u r e s .
The C o m mission then sought figures on the consumption of methadone
syrup. As this form of methadone is used exclusively for the treatment
of addicts, m e thadone syrup consumption figures could reflect the number of narcotic users undergoing methadone treatment.
The statistics received by the Commission for the consumption of
methadone syrup for the years 1974 to 1978 are given in Table I V . 2 0 .
These figures p r obably underestimate the total amount of methadone used to treat drug users since they do not include methadone tablets used by
private treatment clinics or prescribed by private doctors. For
example, in T a s m a n i a , which has no official methadone treatment program, the consumption of syrup was shown as n i l .
Table IV.20 shows that the consumption of methadone has increased in each State w i t h p a r t i cularly large increases from 1976 to 1978 (for all
States except New South Wales). These large increases indicate that the number of patients treated with syrup or the average dosage (or both)
have increased, part i c u l a r l y over the last two y e a r s .
Part (b) of Table IV.20 shows the consumption relative to
population. This further shows the increase in methadone syrup
consumption, p a r t i cularly in 1976 to 1978.
It is interesting to note that New South Wales, whilst leading the
field in the overall consumption f i g u r e s , has remained far more stable
in its methadone syrup consumption than the other States over the period 1975 to 1978. Furthermore in 1978 it no longer had the highest per
capita consumption. Both Queensland and Western Australia had higher
rates of consumption.
Drug Overdose Admissions
The circumstances surrounding an overdose can va r y considerably.
The overdose can be accidental or deliberate and can occur with either
an occasional or heavy user. It can result from either the legal or
illegal use of d r u g s . Although data on overdoses generally cannot
A306
C o m p a r i s o n o f M e t h a d o n e C o n s u m p t i o n for t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 4 t o 1 9 7 8
(a) T o t a l c o n s u m p t i o n (mis)
2 5 m g / 5 m l s y r u p N . S . W . V I C . Q L D . S . A . W . A . T A S . A . C . T . N . T . A U S T .
1 9 7 4 2 4 0 7 5 0 2 0 7 5 0 12 2 5 0 -
1 9 7 5 1 1 8 8 8 0 0 3 0 9 8 0 0 31 7 5 0 - 65 7 5 0
1 9 7 6 1 2 5 8 5 0 0 4 7 4 5 0 0 20 5 0 0 6 6 5 0 0 4 1 5 0 0
1 9 7 7 1 5 4 3 5 0 0 5 7 8 2 5 0 3 6 0 5 0 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 2 5 0
1 9 7 8 1 6 2 1 5 0 0 9 4 1 7 50 7 0 4 0 0 0 2 3 6 2 5 0 7 4 6 5 0 0
4 5 0 0 - 1
5 7 3
6 0 0
7 5 0
6 0 0
- - 1 8 6 1 5 0 0
1 2 5 0 2 5 0 0 0 2 8 7 3 7 5 2
18 5 0 0 4 2 6 8 5 0 0
(b) N o . o f m i s p e r 1 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n
1 9 7 4 4 9 . 7 5 5 . 6 4 5 . 9 9 - -
1 9 7 5 2 4 3 . 3 8 8 3 . 3 0 1 5 . 2 4 - 5 7 . 3 4
1 9 7 6 2 5 6 . 0 9 1 2 6 . 6 7 9 . 7 1 5 2 . 7 1 3 5 . 4 8
1 9 7 7 3 1 1 . 4 0 1 5 2 . 8 8 1 6 8 . 8 0 1 1 7 . 4 8 1 7 9 . 8 1
1 9 7 8 3 2 3 . 5 5 2 4 6 . 6 2 3 2 4 . 9 2 1 8 3 . 4 8 6 1 0 . 8 3
2 0 . 1 3
2 3 . 5 7 - 1 1 6 . 2 3
1 3 3 . 7 7
6 . 0 0 2 3 6 . 9 7 2 0 4 . 2 0
8 5 . 6 9 - 2 9 9 . 5 8
N o t e : F i g u r e s f o r 1 9 7 8 a r e s u b j e c t t o a u d i t .
P o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s w e r e s u p p l i e d b y t h e B u r e a u o f S t a t i s t i c s . J u n e q u a r t e r 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 8 w e r e u s e d .
(Source: Commonwealth Department of Health)
provide a guide to the extent of u s e , such figures may reflect trends in
the illegal use of drugs by the general population.
No systematic collection of information on overdoses is undertaken in Australia. Accordingly, the Commission requested overdose figures from several major hospitals in Australia. Among the evidence received were results of a survey on drug overdoses carried out at the Prince of
Wales H o spital at Randwick, Sydney by a medical student, Mr D. Lim.
Some of these results are summarised in Table IV.21.
Table IV.21 shows that the m ajority of overdose cases arose from the
abuse (not necessarily illegal use) of legally prescribed d r u g s .
Narcotics (which could include legal narcotics in addition to heroin)
were involved only in 18 cases in 1977. The drugs primarily involved
were tranquillisers and non-barbiturate hypno-sedatives with
barbiturates featuring prominently as well.
Information received from eight other hospitals supported the trends shown in Table I V . 2 1 . Generally, the major drugs involved were legally prescribed d r u g s---particularly barbiturates, tranquillisers and to a lesser degree non-barbiturate h y p n o - s e d a t i v e s . Although there was a
higher p e r centage of cases involving narcotics in these hospitals than at the Prince of Wales Hospital, heroin was only of significance in
o n e---St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney. Methadone and legally prescribed narcotics were involved in more than 10 per cent of overdose cases in
only two other hospitals.
Drug-related Deaths
As comprehensive statistics were not available from each State, the Commission was able to form only a general picture of drug-related
deaths. This lack of factual information was highlighted by Dr L. R. H.
Drew, Senior Medical Adviser to the Commonwealth Department of Health
who stated that except for Ne w South Wales:
...there seems to be no inclination to co-ordinate coronial
reports or any other matter relating to disabilities relating to drug use.
(0T 20238)
Dr Drew p rovided the details presented in Table IV.22 which for some
States show the number of deaths known to be related to the abuse of
narcotics. Al t h o u g h the data did not include all States and
Territories, it does give some indication of the number of people
i n v o l v e d .
Discussing the relationship between the use of narcotics and health of the user, a senior Commonwealth Department of Health official stated in confidential session:
A308
Table IV.21
T h e M o s t C o m m o n D r u g s I n v o l v e d i n O v e r d o s e C a s e s s e e n a t
P r i n c e o f W a l e s H o s p i t a l , S y d n e y
1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7
N u m b e r o f C a s e s (a) 3 2 9 3 3 6 2 4 7 3 2 9
D r u g s ( b ) :
N a r c o t i c s N / A 9 5 18
N o n - b a r b i t u r a t e
h y p n o - s e d a t i v e s (c) 57 7 0 57 89
B a r b i t u r a t e s 6 1 61 32 4 5
T r a n q u i l l i s e r s (d) 1 1 9 1 2 7 8 5 97
A n t i d e p r e s s a n t s 18 31 8 12
A n t i c o n v u l s a n t s 13 4 7 1 6
A n a l g e s i c s 3 5 33 2 0 2 6
T o t a l (e) 3 0 3 3 3 5 2 1 4 3 0 3
(a) T h e s e a r e t h e n u m b e r o f p a t i e n t s s e e n .
(b) In c a s e s w h e r e m o r e t h a n o n e d r u g w a s i n v o l v e d ,
w a s i n c l u d e d .
e a c h d r u g t a k e n
(c) T h e m a j o r n o n - b a r b i t u r a t e h y p n o - s e d a t i v e s i n v o l v e d
(33 c a s e s i n 1 9 7 7 ) a n d M o g a d o n (39 c a s e s i n 1 9 7 7 ) .
w e r e M a n d r a x
(d) T h e t r a n q u i l l i s e r s m o s t
1 9 7 7 ) a n d S e r e p a x (30 c a s e s :
o f t e n i n v o l v e d
in 1 9 7 7 ) .
w e r e V a l i u m (54 c a s e s in
(e) T h e s e f i g u r e s d o n o t c o v e r a l l d r u g s i n v o l v e d , o n l y t h e m o s t
c o m m o n . T h e t o t a l s a r e o n l y i n c l u d e d t o p r o v i d e p e r s p e c t i v e t o t h e
f i g u r e s f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l d r u g s . N o t e t h a t t h e a c t u a l t o t a l s f o r a l l
d r u g s i n v o l v e d ( t h i s w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e ) w o u l d e x c e e d t h e n u m b e r o f c a s e s
s i n c e s o m e c a s e s i n v o l v e d m o r e t h a n o n e d r u g .
( S o u r c e : O p e n E x h i b i t 684)
T a b l e IV. 22
D e a t h s k n o w n t o b e r e l a t e d t o t h e A b u s e o f N a r c o t i c s i n s o m e S t a t e s
S t a t e 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7
N e w S o u t h W a l e s 14 16 4 9 4 2
Q u e e n s l a n d 1 3 3 7
W e s t e r n A u s t r a l i a 5 11
T a s m a n i a 1 1 2 -
N o r t h e r n T e r r i t o r y , 4
( S o u r c e s : S t a t e H e a l t h A u t h o r i t i e s )
A309
There is no proven association of the prolonged controlled use
of narcotics with serious harm to h e a l t h . . .Few, if any, deaths
are due to narcotic o v e r d o s e . Death is usually due to some
other complication of the injection.
The argument is that although it ma y appear to be overdose of
drug, it is probably something else that caused the death...It
is not an argument against the fact that narcotic users kill
t h e m s e l v e s . It's only a technical argument about the mode of
death.
(CT)
Other evidence on drug-related deaths presented to the Commission
i n c l u d e d :
A. A report b y M. J. Liddy for the Division of Analytical Laboratories,
of the N S W Health Commission , entitled 'The Increasing Incidence of Fatalities Related to the Abuse of Narcotic Analgesic Drugs in NS W
and A.C.T., 1974â 76'. This report showed an upward trend in deaths
associated with the use of narcotic analgesics. In 1974 there were
13 deaths attributed to narcotic analgesics in NS W and A.C.T.; in
1975, 15, and in 1976, 51. (OT 14442).
Of a total of 78 cases examined, 35 deaths were due to the narcotics
heroin, morphine and opium, while 19 were associated with the use of
methadone (OT 14442). The slight differences between these
statistics and those in Table IV.22 are possibly due to the data
having been extracted from different sources or to different drug
definitions being u s e d .
B. A statement by Detective Sergeant D. J. Craft, Officer-in-Charge of
the A.C.T. Police Drug Squad in November 1977 that deaths resulting
from the illegal use of drugs in the A.C.T. had averaged one a year
for the last three years.
C. The results of a review of the Sydney Coroner's Reports for the
years 1972 to 1978 carried out by a senior official of the
Commonwealth Department of Health (given as evidence in confidential session). These results indicated that:
- deaths involving narcotics increased dramatically from being of
little significance in 1972 (when there were 8 deaths) to a
'level of c o n c e r n ' in 1976. In 1978, there were 32 deaths.
These d e a t h s , however, represented less than one in eight of
all the drug-related deaths r e v i e w e d ;
- deaths involving barbiturates had diminished markedly w ith time
(from a peak of 141 in 1972 to 64 in 1977 and 68 in 1978);
- deaths involving the non-barbiturate hypno-sedatives showed no significant overall change during the period. Although there was a peak in 1975 of 69, the annual figure usually was between
30 and 50 d e a t h s ;
A310
- deaths involving tranquillisers and antidepressants diminished considerably over the p e r i o d , falling from 24 in 1972 to 7 in
1977 and 9 in 1978;
- other drugs were involved only infrequently and the number of
such cases showed no significant change over the period.
D. Evidence from Mr H. F. Adams, Clerk of the Melbourne Coroner's
Court, which indicated that the m a jority of drug-related inquests handled concerned legally prescribed drugs (OT 9500).
Incidence of Serum Hepatitis B
Serum hepatitis B is a disease of the liver which is carried by the
blood stream. It occurs as a complication of intravenous injections or
blood transfusions, especially if the injections or transfusions are
f r e q u e n t , and if the way in wh i c h the injections are given is unsterile
( e .g . , repeated use of needles or syringes or failure to clean the
skin). It is also more common in debilitated people. Thus it is a
hazard of the intravenous use of d r u g s , including heroin or other
injectable substances.
Accordingly, it has been suggested that data on serum hepatitis may
indicate trends in illicit intravenous drug use. The number of cases of
serum hepatitis notified to State health authorities is given in Table
IV.23.
Professional opinions given in evidence also indicated that the
number of reported cases was increasing. Witnesses further suggested
that immunity as a result of previous infection may result in the
increased incidence in the drug using population being understated.
On the other hand, other witnesses suggested that the exact nature
of the relationship of hepatitis B and narcotic usage had become clouded in more recent y e a r s . Dr L. R. H. Drew, a Senior Medical Adviser to the
Commonwealth Department of Health, stated that recent developments in the understanding of hepatitis B had led to a lessening of confidence in
the view that changes in the number of cases of hepatitis B could
reflect changes in narcotic use (OT 20239). This view was supported by
a paper b y Dr I. D. Gust. This p a p e r , presented b y Dr. J. F . Rutter of
Victoria discussed ways other than those discussed above by which serum hepatitis could spread (Open Exhibit 497).
EXTENT OF ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF DRUGS
The Commission did not receive sufficient information to enable it
to estimate accurately the extent to which drugs lawfully obtained are
diverted to illegal trafficking or illegal use. However, the Commission examined various methods w hereby drugs may be diverted in an attempt to
find general indications of the extent of such diversions.
A311
Table IV.23
Notifications for Serum Hepatitis
Year NSW VIC SA WA QLD NT ACT TAS Total
1967-68 - 2 - - - - - - 2
1968-69 - - - - - - - - 0
1969-70 - - 10 4 - 1 3 - 18
1970 - - - - - - - - 0
1971 6 66 - - - - - - 72
1972 26 62 - - - - - 2 90
1973 16 79 - - - - - 1 96
1974 40 79 6 - - - 4 - 129
1975 92 138 55 - - - 11 1 297
1976 162 144 100 12 9 2 13 - 442
1977 222 188 107 9 43 28 40 - 637
(Source: 'Three Studies in Drug Use' research papers for the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.)
A312
These methods of diversion were summarised by Mr R. C. M c C a r t h y ,
rincipal Pharmacist of the South A u s tralian Health Commission, in these o r d s :
It is the Department's opinion that there is little diversion
of the narcotics in the legal channels of distributing to the
illicit t r a d e , certainly in the c h a n n e l , w h o l e s a l e - p h a r m a c i s t . What diversion there is would be the result of burglaries of
p h a r m a c i e s , forged prescriptions and prescriptions obtained by false pretences or injudiciously prescribed.
(OT 7121)
These methods are discussed below.
Prescriptions obtained by False Pretences or Injudiciously Prescribed
Evidence indicated that the m ajority of legal drugs diverged to
illegal use were obtained using prescriptions obtained either b y false p r etences or injudiciously prescribed. Several witnesses, (including h e a l t h officials and drug u s e r s ) , commented that the practice was very
w i d e s p r e a d and users seldom had any difficulties obtaining their
r e q u i r e m e n t s . Evidence also suggested that many users obtained their
p rescriptions from a number of doctors. For example, Dr J. E. Aldred,
of the Victorian Department of Health commented that:
...some persons are employed on what appears to be a full time
basis shopping around from doctor to doctor obtaining
prescriptions for (Pa l f i u m ) .
(OT 2677)
Whilst no accurate measure of the extent of this type of prescribing
was given, witnesses considered that it posed a significant problem.
One witness suggested in confidential session that the total volume of
drugs illegally diverted would at least equal the volume of heroin on
the illegal drug market. Another confidential witness considered that it was possible that in excess of half of the legally prescribed
dextromoramide (Palfium) and almost half of the methadone was 'going
into addicts' hands'. This witness stressed that whilst it was an
impossible task to calculate accurately the extent, the problem was
c o n s i d e r a b l e .
This view was supported, in confidence, by a NSW Health Commission
pharmacist who commented that 1 in every 5 to 10 prescriptions for
narcotic drugs could be diverted to illegal use.
Statistics for the years 1974 to 1978 showing the number of drug
charges involving false pretences for Australia generally are given in Table IV.24. Th e y show that the number of charges increased to 1976 but
have decreased in 1977 and 1978. The major drugs involved were
d e x t r o m o r a m i d e , petjiidine and methadone. In 1978, they accounted for over 70 pe r cent of all charges laid. (The Commission received no
information concerning the apparent sudden increase of charges involving pethidine in 1976.)
A313
Table IV.24
D r u g C h a r g e s i n A u s t r a l i a i n v o l v i n g F a l s e P r e t e n c e s
D r u g 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8
D e x t r o m o r a m i d e 2 9 4 1 13 3 6 1 8
( P a l f i u m )
M e t h a d o n e 9 1 3 3 6 6 5 5 0
( P h y s e p t o n e )
P e t h i d i n e 1 4 1 6 1 3 4 2 0 1 3
O t h e r N a r c o t i c s 5 8 4 5 12 8
M a n d r a x 1 3 2 6 1 8 2
B a r b i t u r a t e s a n d - 3 - 2 6
o t h e r H y p n o t i c s
A m p h e t a m i n e s - - 2 7 5
T r a n q u i l l i s e r s 1 1 2 - 3 1 0
O t h e r s 3 3 4 5 2
T o t a l 6 2 9 9 2 6 0 1 6 8 1 1 4
(S o u r c e : C o m m o n w e a l t h P o l i c e S t a t i s t i c a l S u r v e y s - ' D r u g A b u s e i n
A u s t r a l i a 1 )
T a b l e IV. 25
F o r g e d P r e s c r i p t i o n s p r e s e n t e d u n d e r t h e N a t i o n a l H e a l t h A c t
D r u g 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7
D e x t r o m o r a m i d e 9 2 9 7 1 5 3
( P a l f i u m )
M e t h a d o n e 1 5 7 1 7 2 1 2 3
( P h y s e p t o n e )
P e t h i d i n e 5 4 7 2 0
O t h e r N a r c o t i c s 1 1 15 3 9
B a r b i t u r a t e s 7 17 14
N i t r a z e p a m 4 13 74
( M o g a d o n )
D i a z e p a m 4 4 1 1 8 1 5 7
( V a l i u m )
O t h e r s 1 3 1 0 4 8
T o t a l 3 3 3 4 8 9 6 2 8
N o . o f P r e s c r i p t i o n s N / A 4 7 5 5 9 9
( S o u r c e : C o m m o n w e a l t h D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h )
A314
Evidence received by the Commission also indicated there was a
number of doctors in most capital cities who would frequently prescribe drugs of addiction to known addicts on request. Information on such
doctors tended to circulate quickly through the user community and as a
result these doctors generally p r e s cribed for a considerable number of addicts. One witness, a drug user himself, cited one example in
confidential session:
Ev e r y Sunday at his surgery there would be 30 or 40 fellows who
would turn up. He would see us for about 30 seconds and write
a prescription and each person would pay $13 or $14 being the
Sunday rate.
Although such prescribing was undesirable and often u n l a w f u l ,
witnesses suggested few doctors were ever prosecuted. Reasons given by witnesses included:
- most problems were resolved through c o u n s e l l i n g ;
- State Health Departments appeared to be reluctant to prosecute
medical practitioners;
- the stigma of deregistration was considered very serious;
- every top medical administrative unit in government d e p a r t m e n t s ,
State or Commonwealth, was controlled by medical practitioners;
- it was difficult to get a conviction because it had to be proved the
doctor knew he was prescribing for an addict.
Forged Prescriptions
Witnesses indicated that as no central body collected data on forged prescriptions, it was not possible to determine accurately the amount of drugs obtained in this way. Although evidence suggested that forging
prescriptions was not as easy as obtaining prescriptions directly from a doctor, witnesses considered it still posed a considerable problem.
Statistics relating to detected forged prescriptions covered b y the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and presented under the National Health Act were obtained from the Commonwealth Department of Health (see Table I V ,25). These statistics showed a steady increase in the number of
forgeries being detected. The drugs mostly involved were
dextromoramide, methadone and d i a z e p a m . In 1977, these drugs accounted for almost 70 per cent of all National Health Act prescription forgeries detected. It must be r e m e m b e r e d , however,that not all forgeries
dispensed under this Act are detected. F u r t h e r m o r e , evidence
indicated that because of the risk of detection, forgeries were more
likely to be written outside the provisions of the Pharmaceutical
Benefits S c h e m e . ,
A315
Table IV.26
D r u g T h e f t s f r o m L i c i t S o u r c e s
S o u r c e 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8
P h a r m a c y ( B r e a k ,
E n t e r a n d S t e a l )
1 7 0 5 2 0 5 3 1 2 3 5 2 0 5 2 3 6
P h a r m a c y ( A r m e d
H o l d - u p )
10 4 6 54 2 9 38 5 0
D o c t o r 's S u r g e r y 2 0 7 2 4 3 1 8 8 1 4 8 2 1 1 2 5 7
D o c t o r ' s C a r 1 2 2 2 2 8 1 6 8 67 73 5 2
W h o l e s a l e r - 1 5 - 3 3
M a n u f a c t u r e r 3 - 1 - - 1
H o s p i t a l 2 5 2 6 25 17 16 1 6
M i s c e l l a n e o u s 53 27 2 0 7 13 73
T o t a l 5 9 0 1 0 9 1 9 9 2 5 0 3 5 5 9 6 8 8
( S o u r c e : C o m m o n w e a l t h P o l i c e S t a t i s t i c a l
T a b l e I V . 2 7
D r u g s S t o l e n f r o m L i c i t S o u r c e s
N a r c o t i c s (gms)
S u r v e y s - ' D r u g A b u s e i n A u s t r a l i a ')
S t a t e 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7 1 9 7 8
N . S . W . 6 6 3 1 6 1 1 6 2 4 8 2 8 8 0 2 6 0 5 1 2 6 2 2
V i c . 7 6 5 9 1 9 1 5 3 5 6 3 5 9 2 1 8 7 7 1 1 9 9
Q l d . 4 3 5 3 9 1 1 5 2 7 5 4 6 2 6 5 1 3 4 3
S . A . 4 5 8 1 5 4 3 2 8 7 7 1 5 1 2 5 5 5 2 2 6
W. A. 5 8 6 2 2 4 5 6 6 3 13 5 5 2 8 9 6
T a s . 8 1 4 9 4 - 41 - 4 8
N . T . - - 1 3 4 - - -
A . C . T . 4 8 - - -
A u s t r a l i a (a) 9 0 0 5 19 9 8 0 13 0 4 0 6 5 8 3 5 8 5 4 1 6 3 3 5
( T h i s t a b l e i s c o n t i n u e d o n t h e n e x t p a g e )
A316
Table IV.27 (cont.)
Amphetamines (gms)
State 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
N.S.W. 41 63 62 18 30 32
Vic. 5 53 41 36 15 16
Qld. 1 - 4 1 1 3
S.A. 1 - 27 9 2 1
W.A. 4 - 6 - 0(b) 17
Tas. - 22 - 0(b) - -
N.T. - - - - - -
A.C.T. 1 - - - - -
Australia (a) 53 138 141 65 49 68
Methaqualone (gms)
State 1975 1976 1977 1978
N.S.W. 491 388 1445 1988
Vic. 475 570 403 88 7
Qld. 1276 220 214 1062
S.A. 0 (b) 91 356 268
W.A. 144 - - 1108
Tas. - 87 - 109
N.T. - - - -
A.C.T. - - -
Australia (a) 2386 1356 2418 5422
(a) These figures may not equal the sum of the various States due to rounding.
(b) Thefts for this State amounted to less than 0.5 gms.
(Source: Commonwealth Police Statistical Surveys - 'Drug Abuse in
Australia')
A317
Similar patterns were found for the number of drug charges laid by
police involving forged prescriptions, both PBS and private. Statistics showed a steady increase in the number of charges from 1974 to 1978.
Dextromoramide and methadone were the drugs most involved. Diazepam,
however, was involved only in a few c h a r g e s . For e x a m p l e , in 1978 it
was involved in 10 charges.
Forged p rescriptions are discussed in more detail in Part XIII.
Drug Thefts from Legal S o u r c e s :
Table IV.26 shows the number and nature of drug thefts from legal
sources in A u stralia for the years 1973 to 1978. These statistics show
that the number of such thefts rose dramatically in 1974, fell slightly
in 1975 and almost halved in 1976 before rising in both 1977 and 1978.
The major sources for drug thefts were pharmacies, doctors' surgeries
and doctors' cars.
The quantities of drugs stolen from legal sources in the various
States are given in Table I V . 2 7 . It should be noted that although the
number of thefts from licit sources rose by 23 per cent in 1978 (see
Table I V . 2 6 ) . the quantities of narcotics involved rose by 180 per cent. This dramatic increase was mainly due to the quantity stolen in New
South Wales, where the 1978 figure represented an increase of 380 per
cent over the 1977 figure. At the same time, witnesses indicated that
the stocks of these drugs kept at p h a r m a c i e s , had decreased over this
p e r i o d .
The quantity of narcotics involved in thefts decreased following a
peak in 1974 until it rose dramatically in 1978. The quantity of
amphetamine stolen increased suddenly in 1974, decreased suddenly in
1976 but since then has remained fairly constant. Note that these
amounts are much smaller than the quantities of narcotics stolen. Data
on methaqualone was only available since 1975 but the quantities stolen have been increasing since 1976.
EXTENT OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS SO FAR AS IS RELEVANT TO THE ILLEGAL USE
OF DRUGS.
Although data was not available to show the relationship between
drug misuse and illegal use, professional opinion appeared to support
the theory of inter-relation. Dr C. P. V. Evans, Deputy Director-
General of the Commonwealth Department of Health, stated that
longitudinal studies of drug use overseas had shown that drug use did
not usually begin with the use of illegal drugs: adolescent drug use
generally started with legal d r u g s . These studies considered that the
use of legal drugs was a necessary stage between non-use and illegal
drug use (OT 3616).
Several witnesses considered that the illegal drug problem was, in
part, due to a permissive attitude that has developed towards the use of
A318
all d r u g s , including a l c o h o l , t o b a c c o , tranquillisers and analgesics. The high consumption of alcohol and legal anxiety-relieving drugs set
the pattern for the alternative, but illegal, drug taking of the young.
These witnesses suggested that this ready social acceptance of drugs was related to society's ambivalent attitudes to the medical profession. Society encouraged the attitude that there should be a chemical solution to almost any problem on the one hand and permitted evasion of the
'stuffy' restrictions on availability of drugs on the other (T. B.
Stephens OT 8462).
This is further discussed in Part III, Legal Use of Drugs.
General
As this Chapter deals partly with legal drugs the material received
in evidence is not so imprecise as that received under other heads of
the factual terms of reference; for example, on the extent of
importations of illegal drugs in Chapter 3 of this Part. What has been
said at the end of that Chapter is applicable here. The need for an
effective system of recording, collating, and making available data on drug abuse is obvious.
A319
A320
Chapter 7 The Organised Basis of Drug-related Crime
The Commission's concern with the topic dealt with in this Chapter was
in the context of paragraph (d) of the Terms of Reference. This required
the Royal Commission to inquire into and report on the extent (if any)
to which the illegal importation, illegal exportation, or illegal
production of drugs and the illegal trafficking in drugs (those being
the illegal activities mentioned in paragraph (a) of the Terms of
Reference) are engaged in, directly or indirectly, by persons who
engage, on an organised basis, in other illegal activities, whether or
not related to drugs. Paragraph (d) further requires the Royal
Commission to inquire into and report on the extent (if any) to which
drugs are illegally used and the extent to which drugs lawfully obtained are diverted to illegal trafficking or illegal uses (the illegal use and diversion to trafficking mentioned in paragraph (c) of the Terms of
Reference) by such per s o n s .
In other words it asks the Commission to concern itself with the
relationship between criminals and the illegal drug t r a d e .
Most of the evidence received by the Royal Commission relevant to
paragraph (d) of the Terms of Reference was received in confidence and
there are good reasons for its remaining confidential to the Commission. For example, publication could jeopardise the safety of a witness who
gave the evidence or it could jeopardise a current law enforcement
operation. Such considerations make it inappropriate to publish much of the evidence received relevant to paragraph (d) of the Terms of
Reference. What follows therefore is an assessment of the evidence
received and its significance, and the conclusions to be derived from
that evidence. It is not part of the Commission's task pursuant to its
Terms of Reference to engage in naming those engaged in the illegal
activities mentioned in paragraph (a) of the Terms of Reference or the
illegal use or the diversion of drugs mentioned in paragraph (c) and who
also engage on an organised basis in other illegal activities, whether
or not related to dru g s . The Commission can see no purpose in naming
such people where they may be the subject of current interest on the
part of law enforcement authorities. To do so would only alert them as
the nature and extent of such interest. In other situations people have
been named to the Commission as engaged in illegal activities on an
organised basis and it has not been possible on the evidence, to form
any concluded view as to the accuracy or otherwise of the allegations
made in respect of them. In those circumstances it would be neither
responsible nor productive for the Commission to name the individuals.
For considerations such as those mentioned above, individuals are
not named in this Chapter except in one case where this is done to
illustrate the implications of engagement on an organised basis in the
illegal activities outlined in paragraph (a) of the Terms of Reference. The steps taken by the Commission in respect of information received by
it relating to current or prospective criminal activities are dealt with
later in this Chapter.
A321
In reporting on its inquiries pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (c) of
the terms of reference the Royal Commission has dealt with the extent
of, and methods used in, the illegal importation, exportation,
production and trafficking of drugs and the extent to which drugs are
illegally used and to which drugs lawfully obtained are diverted to
illegal trafficking or illegal uses. Whilst it is not appropriate to
repeat what is said there it should be pointed out:
1. There was no evidence of a n y , or any current, substantial illegal
exportation of drugs from Australia.
2. The evidence received by the Royal Commission indicates that in the
immediate past the illegal production of drugs in Australia has been substantially limited to the growing of cannabis.
3. The diversion of drugs lawfully obtained to illegal trafficking or
illegal uses is, on the e v i d e n c e , engaged in, substantially if not
wholly, by individuals or small groups of individuals to satisfy
their own immediate n e e d s .
It must also be appreciated that these are the known facts of the
present situation. It may change. These matters should be borne in
mind when considering what follows.
WHAT IS MEANT BY 'ORGANISED BASIS'?
It is desirable to say something in respect of the phrases
'organised basis' and 'directly' or 1 indirectly' used in paragraph (d) of the terms of ref e r e n c e . In considering the expression 'organised
basis' used in respect of persons who engage in illegal activities other than the illegal activities mentioned in paragraph (a) of the terms of
reference or the illegal use or the diversion mentioned in paragraph (d) (from here on it is convenient to refer to these as 'other illegal
activities') it is not necessary to adopt a formal definition of a
particular concept which will satisfy both academic students of the
topic and practical investigative groups. Indeed, to do so may
arbitarily exclude persons who ought to be included for consideration
and will almost certainly give rise to barren argumentation concerning definitional appropriateness and whether particular persons ought to be
included or e x c l u d e d .
Phrases such as 'organised c r i m e ' and arbitary definitions of such phrases quickly become catch cries devoid of any meaning and, becoming
labels and ends in the m s e l v e s , detract attention from the task of
effectively dealing with criminal activity. It was considered more
important to seek to identify the characteristics by reason of which it can be said that individuals engage in other illegal activities on an
organised b a s i s . These characteristics are obviously not restricted to a formalised structure with predefined powers, responsibilities and
f u n c t i o n s .
There are degrees of organisation which vary from one group of
individuals engaged in other illegal activities to another group so
A322
e n g a g e d . Indeed wi t h i n the same group the degree of organisation may
vary w i t h the p a r t i c u l a r other illegal activity engaged in. In the
broadest sense, h o w e v e r , the other illegal activities are engaged in for the purpose of making money. To achieve this, or to maximise the amount
to be m a d e , a number of individuals necessarily act in concert according to a definite order and direction. Within the group so engaged there is
a hierarchy of a c c o u n tability with persons at one level marked by being
accountable to persons who might thereby be regarded as being at a
higher level than they but who themselves m a y be accountable to others
who might consequently be regarded as being at a still higher level.
Should enforcement of such accountability be considered necessary
v i olence or the threat of violence, and ultimately m u r d e r , is resorted
to. Of course the common interest of all participants is making money
and that this is most effectively done by participating will reduce the
occasions on wh i c h such resort is necessary. The position in the
h i erarchy will frequently, but not a l w a y s , determine the proportion of profits going to an individual. The activities engaged in by the group
continue over time. They do not depend upon the continued participation of all those who engage in the other illegal activity or any aspect of
it at a particular time. In other words, individual members of the
group may be lost, for example upon being convicted for their part in a
par t i c u l a r illegal activity, but other (or even the same) illegal
act i v i t y by the remaining members continues unabated. To protect its
m embers and its activities the g r o u p , or members of it, will seek to
influence law enforcement agents and persons regarded as influential. This does not stop at b r i b e r y . There will be efforts to compromise such
people or to place members of the group in a position where they are
regarded worthy of special consideration. They may, for e x a m p l e ,
associate with the person sought to be influenced in worthy charitable
or other organisations. They ma y offer him favourable legitimate
business opportunities. On this approach 1 organised crime', a phrase wh i c h excites much discussion and which is increasingly becoming a vogue word, is wi t h i n the area for consideration with emphasis on the
characteristics of the organisation rather than on the definition of the
term.
So far as 'd i r e c t ' or 'i n d i r e c t ' involvement is concerned 'd i r e c t '
involvement clearly includes people who engage in the physical aspect of a p a r t icular crime. In the context of drug offences they actually carry
the drugs or steal the passport to facilitate the entry into Australia
of the carrier. On this approach p e r s o n s , for e x a m p l e , providing the
ideas and/or finance for the particular illegal activity but no more may be regarded as 'indirectly' involved. The significance of the phrase
'directly or indirectly' is taken to be to give the widest possible
connotation to engagement in the illegal activities mentioned in
pa r a g r a p h (a) of the terms of reference and the illegal use or the
d i version mentioned in paragraph ( c ) .
I NVESTIGATION OF THE 'ORGANISED BASIS' OF CRIME
The Royal Commission's report in respect of paragraph (d) of the
term of reference must be approached in the context of some
considerations relevant to the evidence which was available to and
received by the Commission relating to that particular term of
r e f e r e n c e . The identification of persons engaged on an organised basis
A323
in other illegal activities is fraught with difficulty. Persons who
engage in illegal activities are generally at pains to disguise the
nature of the activities and their connection with those activities.
The purpose of the 'organised basis' of illegal activities is to
insulate from the illegal activity those who organise it; for e x a m p l e , to protect 'principals' by having the crime committed by individuals
having no apparent connection with them; to make less susceptible to
discovery the links between principals and those who actually commit
crimes by disguising such links; and to facilitate, by intimidation or corruption, the suppression of evidence of connection or involvement. F u r t h e r , the determination of whether individuals engage on an organised basis in other illegal activities depends upon elements other than the
necessary elements of the particular illegal activity. For example,
there is an element of planning and organisation in any conspiracy to
commit an illegal a c t---it may be robbing a bank. It does not
necessarily follow that those engaged in such a conspiracy are engaged on an organised basis in illegal activities except in the narrow sense
of the single illegal activity the subject of the conspiracy.
The activities of law enforcement are largely designed for, and
directed to, the control of individuals by reacting to a complaint of an offence already committed so as to identify the individual who committed it, to secure evidence of his involvement and, ultimately, his
conviction. The activities of law enforcement agencies are not directed towards placing detected offences and the individuals connected with them in the context of any 'organised basis' of which those individuals might be a part or to categorising the place and function of individuals within that 'organised basis'. Law enforcement regards its function as
discharged once the individual is arrested and charged in respect of a
particular offence. To say these things is not to criticise law
enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties. The criminal law in Australia is ill equipped to deal with any 'organised basis' of
illegal activities---establishing the 'organised basis' will have no consequence so far as the law is concerned. Thus law enforcement, quite apart from the sheer pressure of dealing with detected individual
criminal activities (with the need to satisfy complainant citizens,
their political representatives and the press) is not directed or
inclined to identify any 'organised basis' or to direct its activities against it. There are some signs of change in the activities, of for
example, the various crime intelligence units. Neve r t h e l e s s , the
comments remain v a l i d . There are difficulties in turning information into practical enforcement. In this context it must also be borne in
mind that those who engage in illegal activities, whether related to
drugs and of the kind specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of the Terms of
Reference or otherwise, are not constrained by the territorial (national or state) boundaries or the considerations of statutory power and
organisational responsibility which constrain the individual law
enforcement agencies.
In practical terms in the Commonwealth sphere at present
Commonwealth law, and consequently Commonwealth law enf o r c e m e n t , deals only with drugs illegally imported into Australia. Enforcement
responsibility in this area is with the Bureau of Customs and in
particular the Narcotics B u r e a u . That Bureau has no direct
responsibility for other offences against Commonwealth law, however
A324
directly they might be connected with illegal activities concerning
drugs of the kind specified in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the terms of
r e f e r e n c e . On the other h a n d , the Australian Federal Police Force is
(and the Commonwealth Police was) charged with responsibility in respect of those other offences but have no responsibility for breaches of
Commonwealth law involving drugs.
On the other hand State police forces deal with breaches of the law
of their particular state committed within its territorial boundaries. In the State sphere the 'organised basis' of a particular illegal
a ctivity identified, and for the commission of which individuals are
apprehended in, for example, Adelaide, may be in Sydney. The money,
pla n n i n g and certain individuals contributing particular skills were pro v i d e d in, occurred or are situated t h e r e . None of these things may
be discovered b y the police in Adelaide, and if they are they may be of
little consequence to them, while if no crime was committed in Sydney
the matter may be of no consequence to the New South Wales police.
C o n s i d eration of the means available to law enforcement agencies to investigate illegal activities is also material. If someone is the
victim of criminal activity that person, upon his complaining to police or up o n a complaint on his behalf, provides a basis for and gives a
d i rection to investigation. When individuals carry out illegal
activities on an organised basis whether or not they are related to
d r u g s , the pos i t i o n is not so simple. In the first p l a c e , the activity
and individuals will probably have to be sought out.
The methods available to law enforcement agencies in this context
(which of course may be, and ideally a r e , used in combination) broadly
speaking, are firstly to seek to penetrate the group by positioning a
law enforcement officer (an undercover agent) within it. The
difficulties of this are o b v i o u s ; apart from the necessity to find the
right kind of officer and consideration of the dangers to which he may
be e x p o s e d , it is frequently impossible to insert an agent except at the
lower level of the organisation. For such an agent to work his way up
to a level where he is useful may be impossible---he may never be
accepted. It is in any event time-consuming (years may be involved).
Man p o w e r is consumed in providing the necessary 'back-up'. Criminal
activity takes no cognisance of normal work hours. The activity may
have to be abandoned because of the necessity for the agent to engage in
illegal activities. Finally those who engage on an organised basis are extremely wary of such p e n e tration---one of the purposes of the
organised basis is to inhibit it.
The second method is to obtain access to a person within the group
(an i n f o r m e r ) . Once again the difficulties are o b v i o u s . Again one of
the very purposes of the organised basis is to inhibit such an
o c c u r r e n c e . The access is in any event usually fortuitous. A law
enforcement agency cannot go and acquire an informant in a group simply
b ecause it decides to direct resources to look at that group. On the
other hand, it ma y acquire an informant in a group which, in terms of
its priorities for committing its res o u r c e s , is rightly not held to be
par t i c u l a r l y important but which then must be attended to.
A325
The third method is to undertake surveillance of those believed to
be involved in illegal activities in order to identify patterns of
association and the relationship between individuals so as to be able to identify the nature of the activities engaged in or p r o p o s e d . If the
activity is illegal this knowledge is used to disrupt the activity and
with a view to, ultimately, receiving the conviction of those concerned. This method is extremely demanding in terms of law enforcement
resources, particularly m a n p o w e r , and places great strain on the
individual law enforcement officers involved. The subjects of
surveillance are frequently alert to the possibility of surveillance and adept in making effective surveillance difficult if not impossible. The difficulties of law enforcement are added to by inability to intercept
communications (written or oral) or to overhear conversations, which are essential concomitants to a number of individuals' engaging in illegal activities on an organised basis. In any event, it has been the
experience in other countries that the use of such powers imposed
substantial additional demands on manpower resources.
As has already been said, much of the evidence received by the Royal
Commission relevant to paragraph (d) of the Terms of Reference was
received subject to the confidentiality and witness-protection
provisions of the various statutes applying to the Commission. It will
be appreciated that it was not likely that the Commission would receive
evidence from individuals currently engaged on an organised basis in
illegal activities. The Commission d i d , h o w e v e r , receive evidence from a number of individuals who had previously engaged in illegal activities of various kinds on an organised basis. The very existence of the
organised basis was a constraint on such persons giving evidence and on
the evidence they gave.
Among those who gave evidence were people who had been detected and
convicted for engaging in illegal activities. The weight to be given to the evidence of such people has to be carefully considered. Frequently
they have a limited view of the activity without appreciating the
limitations of their v i e w---that is a function of the 'organised basis'.
They are often people who are habituated to untruths. There may be an
incentive to give the Commission a particular appreciation of some
aspects of their role and an incentive to conceal other aspects.
In addition to witnesses in the category just referred to the
Commission received evidence from people who had not themselves engaged in any illegal activity but who claimed to have knowledge of both
the illegal activities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of
the Terms of Reference and of the involvement in those activities
of individuals who engaged on an organised basis in other illegal
activities either related or not related to drugs. Once again,
the evidence of such witnesses has to be approached with great
circumspection. When the basis of their evidence was scrutinised it was frequently seen that the witnesses themselves had no personal knowledge of the matters of which they spoke. They w e r e , r a t h e r , reiterating
stories or rumours circulated within their particular community and
which, by reason of the extent and continuity of such circulation and by
reason of their being taken up by newspapers, radio and television, come
A326
to be accepted by the witness and by other members of the community as
reflecting the true situation.
It was apparent to the Commission that some who sought to give
evidence were interested in advancing their own interests or personal
animosities against an individual rather than the truth, and their
evidence was for these reasons discounted or discarded. There were
those who sought to impose conditions on the giving of their evidence
wh i c h were not acceptable to counsel assisting the Commission or the
solicitors instructing them. As a consequence, no evidence was received from those persons. The Commission received a considerable body of
evidence relevant to paragraph (d) of the Terms of Reference from law
enforcement authorities and the officers of such authorities. With all witnesses there was frequently apparent a tendency to assume that their limited knowledge and experience could be regarded as having universal application to account for all aspects of criminal offences, either of
the kinds referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Terms of
Reference or otherwise.
The evidence received by the Commission relevant to paragraph (d) of the Terms of R e f erence related to known or detected activities both of
the kind referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Terms of Reference
and to other illegal activities. With respect to all aspects of
p a r agraph (d) of the Terms of Reference the Commission has no way of
knowing the total extent of the activities or the proportion of the
activities dealt with in evidence to that total.
A body of the evidence received by the Commission was, or was based
upon, an approach conveniently described as deriving a 'theory' or
'theories' of 'organised crime'---often based on the experience of the
United States of A m e r i c a---and, upon applying it to facts considered
relevant to c o n t emporary A u s t ralian events and individuals finding signs establishing the presence of 'organised crime'. Such an approach is
useful but mu s t be used with great care. It is very easy, particularly
wh e n facts are, and can be, but p a rtially known, to fit those facts into
a model of 'organised crime' in Australia. The ease with which this
can be done wh e n taken wi t h the material bias of the proponent of the
c a s e---may result in equally applicable explanations being overlooked or ignored. Facts which are not known may entirely alter the significance
of what is known. There are, moreover, many who are very anxious to
find 'organised crime' on the American model in Australia. Proponents
of this approach have, on occasions, a propensity to seize upon and
emphasise facts which support the approach and ignore facts which do
n o t---or which are contrary to it.
A ROYAL COMMISSION INITIATIVE
In addition to the evidence received from officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, the Commonwealth Police Force, the
police forces of all the States and Territories a considerable body of
evidence relevant ^to paragraph (d) of the Terms of Reference was
received from officers of the Commonwealth Police Force who were
specifically designated to carry out investigations on behalf of the
A327
Commission. It is necessary to say something of the circumstances in
which this o c c u r r e d .
In the course of the Commission's sittings in Sydney towards the end of June 1978 confidential evidence was received relating to the
involvement of individuals and groups of individuals and of commercial enterprise in criminal activities including, but not restricted to, the illegal importation and illegal production of drugs and trafficking in d r u g s . For example, some aspects of this evidence related to the
growing and distribution of marihuana in Australia. In respect of other aspects it was not possible to identify the drug in question or whether
or not it was imported. In the same and yet other cases it was clear
that criminal activities such as illegal gambling, prostitution,
breaches of immigration and currency control laws were involved. The
involvement of illegal activities related to drugs of the kind referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Terms of Reference was less clear in
some cases than in others. Those providing the evidence were not
prepared to provide it to the New South Wales authorities---the Royal
Commission officers were not in a position to consider the justification or absence of justification for this attitude. Indeed it was not
considered appropriate they do so. It must be remembered that this
Royal Commission had no commission from His Excellency the Governor of
the State of Ne w South Wales. In any event the activities dealt with
were by no means restricted to New South Wales. It was, however,
decided that the matters dealt with by the evidence required
investigation.
On 3 July 1978 Senior Superintendent Headland and Detective
Inspector Lamb of the Commonwealth Police Force, having been attached as investigators to the Royal Commission, were briefed by the Commission's senior instructing solicitor and counsel assisting the Commission. On 10 July 1978 the officers mentioned, together with other officers of the Commonwealth Police F o r c e , organised into an investigative unit and an observation squad commenced operations in Sydney (with their own
communications and resources) in premises separate and discrete from the District Headquarters of the Commonwealth Police of New South Wales. The strength of this unit over a period of its existence from 10 July
1978 to August 1979 varied from six to eighteen officers.
The unit reported initially to counsel assisting the Commission and the senior solicitor instructing them on 20 July 1978. This report
supported many aspects of the evidence which had been received and
indicated other areas justifying further consideration. It revealed that the evidence in question showed part of a larger picture. The most
significant aspect was the prospect of establishing connections between groups of individuals---in Sydney, in other parts of Australia and
overseas---who were engaged on an organised basis in illegal activities both of the kinds referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Terms of
Reference and otherwise. After consideration of a more detailed report received on 12 August 1978, and after consultation between officers of the investigative group and counsel assisting the Commission and their instructing solicitors, the investigative group was instructed to
proceed, having regard to Terms of Reference (d), to investigate and
report in respect of evidence and intelligence of the involvement of
A328
certain nominated criminal elements in illegal activities both of the
kind mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Terms of Reference and
o t h e r w i s e .
Certain constraints were placed on the i n v e s t i g a t o r s . They were
instructed not to become involved in the arrest of o f f e n d e r s . For them
to have done so would have been so time consuming as to have depleted or
destroyed their ability to have continued their work for the Commission wh i c h would only be in existence for a limited time. The investigators
were i n s t r u c t e d , so far as possible, to avoid trespassing on ground
traversed by the Ne w South Wales Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking being conducted by the Honourable Mr Justice Woodward. They were
further instructed not to inquire in areas identified as being the
subject of current investigation b y any law enforcement agency. On
occasion one or other of these considerations meant that a particular
line of inquiry was closed off to investigators. No publicity was given
to the existence of the investigative unit. Information received by the investigators relevant to contemporaneous or future h a p p e n i n g s , whether related to drug or other o f f e n c e s , was carefully assessed and discussed w i t h counsel assisting the Commission or the solicitors instructing them
and, in proper cases, passed to the appropriate law enforcement
a u t h o r i t y---State or Federal (sometimes to a number of such authorities) in a form appropriate to the circumstances in which the information was
r e c e i v e d .
It should be m e ntioned that a similar course was adopted with all
such information received by the Commission from any source. It is to
be appreciated that the information here being spoken of was not
n e c e s s a r i l y relevant to the Terms of Reference. It required varying
degrees of further investigation or assessment before its significance could be appreciated. In some cases it was information related to
current interests of law enforcement agencies and could be assessed only in the context of all the information known to the agency in question.
The Commission had itself no capacity to investigate the information and had such capacity been available the Commission would have continued
indefinitely. Finally, it must be remembered the information
pot e n t i a l l y related to current criminal activities---it was unlikely
those engaged in them would await the outcome of the Commission.
Throughout its existence the investigative group reported regularly to counsel assisting the Royal Commission and the solicitors instructing them. Those reports and associated material have been incorporated into the confidential transcript. Officers engaged in the investigation gave confidential evidence on a number of occasions. Subject to appropriate
s a f e g u a r d s , officers of the investigative group have briefed the Crime Intelligence Units of the police forces of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland on matters discovered in the course of investigations
identified as being of interest to the police forces of those states.
Arrangements have be e n made for relevant information to be provided to
officers of the Commissioner of Taxation. It will be appreciated that
these activities related to current continuing activities by those
k n o w n , or believed wi t h reason, to be engaged in illegal activities both
related and unrelated to drugs.
A329
The Task Force
On 14 February 1979 the Royal Commissioner, the Honourable Mr
Justice E. S. Williams, met with the Honourable Mr Justice P. M.
Woodward who was engaged in conducting the New South Wales Royal
Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking. The views of this the
Australian Royal Commission expressed at that meeting was influenced by its assessment of the reports from the investigators as referred to
earlier. It was, however, substantially formed on the overall evidence by then received as to the effectiveness of law enforcement and upon the United States experience ---which the Commissioner and senior counsel had by then seen first hand. Both Royal Commissioners signed a memorandum
comprising recommendations to the Government of the Commonwealth of
Australia and to the New South Wales Government in the following terms:
1. Studies made independently by each Commission have concluded that
the law enforcement effort against drug traffic is significantly
below the level that Governments are entitled to expect because of
the critical lack of co-ordination and co-operation between State and Federal Agencies.
2. The present separate enforcement effort, State and Federal, results in wasteful deployment of resources, duplication of effort and
suboptimal performance.
3. There is an urgent need to develop co-operative modes of
investigation probably using the 'task force' or strike force inter agency models of co-operation developed in the U.S. to eliminate
wasteful duplication of effort and to increase efficiency.
4. Consultation between the Commissions which had been intended to
occur from an early point of time has recently resulted in the
appreciation by each Commission that the other Commission had come to the same conclusion on the matters mentioned in paragraphs 1--3
h e r e o f .
5. These questions were explored in a recent discussion between senior
counsel for each Commission in Sydney. As a result a meeting was
convened in Brisbane between the Royal Commissioners and the legal staffs of each Commission on Wednesday 14 February 1979.
6. As a result of this meeting the Royal Commissioners concluded as a
matter of urgency to urge the Commonwealth Government and the
Government of New South Wales that a joint task force be set up.
At the same time documentation detailing the composition of the task force and other matters relevant to its organisation was signed by the
Royal Commissioners. On 5 May 1979 the Honourable the Prime Minister of
the Commonwealth of Australia and the Honourable the Premier of New
South Wales jointly announced the establishment of a Commonwealth State joint task force aimed at securing the conviction of persons engaged in drug trafficking. The arrangements in respect of the task force the
subject of that announcement substantially accepted the recommendations made by the Royal Commissioners and contained in the documents earlier mentioned. The joint task force commenced operations on 16 July 1979.
Some of the officers of the Commonwealth Police Force seconded to the
A330
Royal Commission to carry out the investigations previously referred to are serving on the task force.
Both Royal Commissions provided material relevant to the
d etermination of targets appropriate for the attention of the joint task force and p r o v i s i o n has been made for appropriate access by the joint
task force to materials held by the Royal Commissions relevant to the
inquiry of the task force. The terms of agreement between the
respective Governments provide for the Royal Commissions to receive
m o n t h l y reports from the joint task force until such time as a
p a r ticular Royal Commission has presented its final report. This Joint Task Force and task forces in general are dealt with in Part XIII
Chapter 8, 'Task Forces'.
THE IMPORTANCE O F SYDNEY IN RELATION TO ILLEGAL DRUGS
Both the investigations on behalf of the Commission and the Joint
Task Force were set up in Sydney. The Commission had received evidence
from the earliest days of its sittings of the importance of Sydney in
the context of illegal importation of drugs into Australia and the
illegal trafficking of drugs within Australia from Mr H. Bates,
A s sistant S e cretary Investigations Branch, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, and responsible for the operations of the Narcotics
Bureau. Mr B a t e s ' vi e w that Sydney was the major trafficking centre for
drugs in Australia and that most of the major shipments of drugs
entering Australia go to Sydney for redistribution was supported by the O f f i cer-in-Charge of the Australian Capital Territory Police Drug Squad, by the Officer-in-Charge of the Tasmanian Police Force Drug Bureau, by
the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force, by the Commander of
the Southern Re g i o n (Victoria and South Australia) of the Narcotics
B u r e a u , by the Chief Investigator in charge of the Narcotics Bureau in
Pe r t h Western Australia, by the Officer-in-Charge of the Victoria Police C.I.B. Drug Bureau, from the former Officer-in-Charge of that bureau, by the Chief Inspector of the Northern Territory Police Force and by the
Senior Narcotics Agent of the Narcotics Bureau in charge in Darwin as
well as from the Regional Commander of the Eastern Region of the
Narcotics Bureau. It is true that some of these witnesses coupled
Sydney and M e l bourne together and that the more recent evidence received b y the Commission in Perth indicated an upsurge of importation directly to P e r t h---although even then it was stated some heroin seized in Perth
was thought to have come from Sydney. The officer in charge of the New
South Wales police drug squad did not think Sydney was the
'headquarters'. He spoke of heroin coming to Sydney from Melbourne,
Perth and Brisbane, 'it is a matter of where the supply is available to
the particular group that is selling it'. He also, however, spoke of
the attractions of Sydney as a market, in the context of it probably
being the most attractive market in Australia.
Support for the view of Sydney as a focal point was found in other
confidential evidence received b y the Commission and is exemplified by a comparison of the seizures recorded by the Bureau of Customs of certain
drugs illegally imported into Australia, in New South Wales and in
Victoria. The seizures for the most part were effected in the capital
cities .
A331
HEROIN
1977 1978
Australia 11 726.9 grams 17 879.50 grams
Ne w South Wales
(Sydney) 6 420.42 grams 12 743.9 grams
Victoria
(Melbourne) 1 573.75 grams 2 070.3 grams
CANNABIS RESIN
1977 1978
Australia 228 799.40 grams 2 429 410.39 grams
New South Wales
(Sydney) 155 853.20 grams 2 148 436.7 grams
Victoria
(Melbourne) 13 806.10 grams 176 969.60 grams
It should be noted that there is no basis for a reliable estimate of
the quantities of drugs illegally imported and not seized.
A further reason for selecting Sydney was that the Commission had
received a considerable body of evidence that illegal gambling, illegal race betting, prostitution and pornography we r e---and had been for many y e a r s---conducted in Sydney on a large scale. Such activities generate considerable cash flows and those engaged in them, on the basis of
experience overseas, are attracted to the money making opportunities afforded b y drug trafficking. This general topic is further dealt with
in Part XIII Chapter 5, 'Financial Controls'.
Finally, Sydney has most of the attractions of the bigger cities of
the Western World. It has excellent communications with other
countries. It is in a country which is stable politically and which is
anxious to attract overseas funds. As has already been said, law
enforcement in Australia is inhibited in dealing with large-scale
continuing criminal activities. It would be foolish to assume that this is not apparent to those outside Australia who engage in such
activities. As will be seen later there are connections between such
individuals overseas and Australian c r i m i n a l s .
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DRUGS
It is evident that in order to be available to the ultimate consumer
drugs have to be procured (manufactured, bought or stolen), transported and distributed. To do those things even on a limited scale is
frequently beyond the capacity of any one person. A g r o u p , and
consequently a degree of organisation, must be in v o l v e d . If the drugs
are to come from overseas (as does presently the heroin illegally used
A332
in Australia) or as a consequence of cultivation in areas relatively
remote from the market and the consumer (as is much of the cannabis
consumed in Australia) the group becomes larger and the organisation
more complex.
The evidence received by the Commission indicates that the groups of persons known to engage in the illegal importation, exportation,
pro d u c t i o n and trafficking in drugs referred to in paragraph (a) of the
Terms of Reference or in the illegal use or diversion of drugs lawfully
obtained referred to in p a ragraph (c) may for present purposes
conveniently be considered as falling into three broad categories:
A. Persons who themselves use drugs or who are immediately involved
with others who use d r u g s .
B . Persons who also engage in illegal activities not related to drugs.
C. Persons w i t h a common national or ethnic b a c k g r o u n d .
The evidence establishes that groups of individuals falling within each of the three categories mentioned engage in illegal activities
related to drugs other than the illegal activities mentioned in
p a r agraph (a) of the Terms of Reference or in the illegal use or the
diversion m e n tioned in paragraph (c). T h u s :
1. Groups of those habituated to barbituates or amphetamines or other
medical drugs and within category A above may engage in one or some
or all of the following activities:
(a) theft of domestic appliances particularly colour television
sets from dwelling houses in order to raise money to finance
their drug habit. The Commission received confidential
evidence from one girl that she and companions stole 15 to 20
sets a day over a period of weeks on this b a s i s . There is also
evidence to support the view that extensive and elaborate
organisations are necessary for disposing of these goods.
There is other evidence suggesting sets stolen in, for example, M e lbourne find their way to Sydney and Adelaide on a regular
b a s i s .
(b) theft from doctor's surgeries of prescription forms.
(c) forging of prescriptions either on forms stolen in the way
referred to above or on prescription forms specially fabricated
for the p u r p o s e .
(d) theft of drugs from pharmacies and doctor's motor vehicles or
p r e m i s e s .
2. Groups within any one of the three categories m a y engage in the
illegal importation of drugs into Australia. To do this may
i n v o l v e ;
A333
(a) breach of the foreign exchange control laws to remove money
from Australia to purchase the drugs o v e r s e a s .
(b) the theft or forgery of Australian passports to facilitate a
courier's entry into Australia.
(c) breach of the passport and immigration laws in order, for
e x a m p l e , to make it appear that a courier's journey originated in places not normally associated with narcotics importation or to get into Australia a person to assist in cultivating.
(d) recourse to a criminal activity, such as fraud, embezzlement or robbery to raise the necessary f u n d s .
3. Within groups falling within any one of the three categories
mentioned above violence may be resorted to for any of a number of
reasons or a combination thereof. Violence may be used to enforce
accountability against a member or members of the group. It may be
used to protect the activities of the group from incursion by other
g r o u p s . It ma y be used to seize drugs in the possession of
another group or to repel such an attempt by another g r o u p . It may
be used in retribution for money having been paid for 'drugs' which
turned out not to be a drug at all---glucose not h e r o i n , grass
clippings not cannabis.
In the period from late May to early September 1979 the Royal
Commission visited the various cities in which it had previously
received evidence for the purpose of up-dating various aspects of that evidence. On the occasion of these later sittings officers in charge of the various State and Territory Drug S q u a d s , and from the Narcotics
Bureau's regional offices, among others, gave evidence. It was most
striking that these officers expressed concern at the increased
incidence of people with substantial criminal records but not previously involved in drugs who were detected as involved in drug trafficking or
seeking to become involved with those who were engaged in drug
trafficking. All such witnesses also expressed great concern at the
increased incidence of violence amongst those engaged in illegal
production, illegal importation and illegal trafficking of drugs. They spoke of it being increasingly common to seize weapons from those
involved in drug related activities. Mention was also made of the
increasing use by drug traffickers of sophisticated communications
equipment. This included commercially available equipment which
permitted the trafficker to search out and listen in to police
t r a n s m i s s i o n s .
On 31 May 1979 the Officer-in-Charge of the Drug Squad of the South
Australia Police expressed concern at the increased prospensity to
violence, the increased incidence of violence and the likelihood that it would not be long before a police officer was shot. On 2 July 1979 in
the course of a gun battle at an hotel in Adelaide between police and
alleged drug traffickers a person allegedly engaged in drug trafficking was shot by police officers. Two others were charged with the attempted
murder of a police officer. A further illustration is provided by
evidence given by the Officer-in-Charge of the Victoria Police Drug
Bureau in respect of two operations conducted by that Bureau in 1978.
The first involved a syndicate which was using prostitutes working in St
A334
KiIda area to supply heroin to street level u s e r s . It involved both
known criminals and prostitutes. The result of the first operation was
summarised for the Commission as f o l l o w s :
(i) Persons charged
(ii) Charges laid:
conspiracy
trafficking in heroin
trafficking in cannabis
burglary
p o s session of firearms
(iii) Drugs seized:
heroin
cannabis
5
4
4
1
1
1
15 grams
147 Thai sticks
amphetamine 2 grams
(iv) Other goods seized:
2 x .22 magnum pistols
2 x shotguns
stolen property
One offender was found in possession of sixty (60) capsules of heroin
the street value of which was estimated by police to be $3000. She
admitted selling sixty capsules of heroin daily over the previous two
and a half m o n t h s . This represents heroin to the value of $225 000 with
an admitted profit of $75 000. Another offender admitted selling heroin valued at $180 000 over a three-month period. The profit was $57 000.
The second operation involved people concerned in the conduct of
massage parlours who were trafficking in heroin (on the basis of
evidence received by the C o mmission, a not uncommon connection). A
feature was the amount of stolen property, including colour television sets and stereo equipment recovered. The result was summarised as
f o l lows:
A335
(i) Persons charged 3
(ii) Charges laid:
trafficking heroin 4
selling heroin 4
handling stolen property 11
felon in possession 1
(iii) Drugs seized:
heroin 4 grams
(iv) Mo n e y seized:
$37 000
(v) Firearms seized:
1 x .32 auto pistol
3 x rifles
1 x 12 gauge shotgun
(vi) Other goods seized:
TV sets
stereo equipment
The two operations in Victoria mentioned above are not u n i q u e . They are illustrative of the kind of activity increasingly being dealt with
by law enforcement agencies throughout the larger cities of Australia. The scale of criminal activities apparent from the details set out above might fairly be regarded as indicating the involvement of persons who
engage in illegal activities on an organised basis.
Similar evidence to that just set out was subsequently given by the
officers-in-charge of the drug squads of the New South Wales, A.C.T. and Queensland police forces. Indeed Detective-Inspector P. A. G. Lawrence of the New South Wales police f o r c e , who had recently become officer-in charge of that force's drug squad after 29 years general criminal
investigation experience told the Commission on 16 August 1979;
Some of the users of those drugs are not in actual fact
criminally involved but when one goes into the area of supply,
I find that many criminals have moved into that field because
it is a lucrative field. I was surprised actually to find as I
went through various daily arrest dossiers to see the records
A336
of a good ma n y criminals that I had dealt with in the past
always simply in the area of ordinary crime.
(CT).
A criminal case history
An a p p r e ciation of the implications on a b roader scale than that
just referred to of the engagement in illegal importation and
t r a f ficking of persons who engage on an organised basis in other illegal activities is perhaps most v ividly gained in terms of the activities of
a par t i c u l a r individual. The individual is chosen not because he is
u n i q u e---far from it. He is chosen because sufficient is known of his
activities to be able to gain more appreciation of them and because he
is serving a term of imprisonment and is thus removed from the scene of
his previous activities. In October 1978 Murray Stewart Riley, having
p l e a d e d guilty, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for his part in
the attempted illegal importation into Australia of 2.7 tonnes of
cannabis in the form of Buddha sticks. In early June 1978 this quantity
was brought to A u s tralia and landed at Port Macquarie or was found
aboard a yacht boarded by law enforcement officers at F orster in New
South Wales. The 2.7 tonnes was part of a larger quantity which a group
of individuals intended to illegally import into Australia. In April
1979 Riley and others had pleaded guilty to having conspired to cheat
and defraud A m e r i c a n Exp r e s s---the offences involved travellers' cheques and w e r e not r elated to the a t t empted illegal importation referred to
a b o v e . Riley also pl e a s e d guilty to a further charge of having forged
an a p p l i c a t i o n for an Aus t r a l i a n passport on 18 April 1975.
Ri l e y had be e n referred to b y the Honourable Mr Justice Moffitt in
his 1974 Re p o r t o n certain matters relating to organised crime in clubs
in N e w South Wales. It appears from that report that Riley was a
detective in the N e w South Wales Police Force. He resigned in the early
1950s following his being returned to uniformed duty. He was
depa r t m e n t a l l y charged with taking out communications for persons in
g a o l . After he left the force Riley was convicted in New Zealand of
attempted br i b e r y of a police inspector and sentenced to 12 months'
i m p r i s o n m e n t . He was deported from New Zealand on 1 March 1967. Mr
J ustice Mof f i t t was satisfied that on this occasion Riley went to New
Z ealand at the behest of some A u s tralian criminals specifically to bribe a N e w Zealand police officer wi t h a view to ultimately procuring the
escape of A u s t ralians then in custody in New Zealand in connection with
charges of dis h o n e s t y relating to a scheme of pyramid selling. Dealing
in some detail wi t h Riley's activities in relation to a number of clubs
in Sydney M r Justice Moffitt found that Riley both organised and
p a r t i c i p a t e d in p r o curing pa y m e n t to himself or others for goods and
services not in fact provided to the clubs or procured the clubs to pay
for goods and services actually provided but at a rate in excess of the
go i n g commercial rate. Mr Justice Moffitt found that Riley engaged in
these activities in association wi t h other residents in Sydney and known to law e n f o rcement agencies to engage in illegal activities of various
kinds, p a r t i c u l a r l y illegal gambling and race betting. One of those Mr
J ustice M offitt found to be an active associate of Riley's was an
Ame r i c a n regarded b y law enforcement agencies in the United States as
engaged in that c ountry in continuing large-scale criminal activities.
A337
Confidential evidence received by this Royal Commission establishes that Riley c o n t i n u e d , up to the time of his arrest in respect of the
attempted illegal importation referred to, to associate with persons in Australia, in the United States, in Hongkong, in the Phillipines and in
Thailand regarded by law enforcement authorities in those places as
being engaged in organised criminal activities. That is to say, he
visited such p eople regularly and stayed with them. He telephoned them
regularly and wrote to them regularly. To facilitate his travel he
travelled under a number of different names and had a number of
Australian passports. In particular, Riley visited regularly persons on the West Coast of the United States who are known b y law enforcement
authorities to have been engaged in criminal activities on an organised basis. He engaged in various ventures with such persons, both in the
United States and elsewhere. The precise nature of all of these
ventures cannot be determined on the information presently available. Some of the ventures can be identified as business ventures of varying
degrees of legitimacy. Other ventures were, or probably were, criminal activities or to facilitate criminal activities of various kinds both in Australia and in other cou n t r i e s .
The magnitude of the operation involved in the attempted illegal
importation referred to, and the scale of the law enforcement effort
necessary to cope with such activities is indicated not only by the
quantity of drugs involved but also by the following considerations.
The drugs in question were acquired in South-East Asia, loaded on to a
large fishing vessel acquired for the purpose and transported to the
South Pacific. Part of the cargo was concealed in a wreck which had
been located and identified as being suitable for the p u r p o s e . The
balance was transferred to another vessel which had been acquired to
transport it to Australia. Of the order of 25 false or forged
Australian passports were used to facilitate the movements of those
involved in the conspiracy. Once landed it was intended that the drug
be transported by motor vehicles to distribution points and thence into the market. The extent of the distribution network and the degree of
organisation necessary to dispose of such a quantity of drugs is
o b v i o u s . A similar course was then to be taken in respect of the drugs
remaining concealed on the wreck. The detection, interception and
apprehension of Riley and his accomplices involved officers of the
police forces of New South Wales, Queensland and the British Solomon
Islands and of the Narcotics Bureau together with other officers of the Australian Bureau of Customs and of the British Solomons' Customs. It
also involved units of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal
Australian Navy. The operations extended over a period of weeks and
required a large commitment of manpower and equipment throughout the
p e r i o d .
Prior to their arrest the conspirators were seen to be associating
with persons regarded by law enforcement authorities in Australia as
having been long involved in many kinds of illegal activities including illegal gambling, illegal betting, prostitution, pornography, crimes of violence and crimes involving the theft of property as well as in
previous illegal importations of drugs. Not all of these associations were directed to the illegal importations of the cannabis referred to. Some were identified as directed to the furtherance of other criminal
activities. The purpose of others could not be identified.
A338
Evidence received by the Commission shows it is typical of persons
of the kind referred to in the previous paragraph that they are never
observed to engage in legitimate employment although on occasions they claim to be so e n g a g e d . They live in expensive d w e l l i n g s , drive
expensive c a r s , dine at expensive r e s t a u r a n t s , travel extensively within A u stralia and overseas. They are prolific users of the telephone and
avid attenders of m e e t i n g s , p a r t i cularly in bars and restaurants. At
least one individual who satisfied the foregoing criteria h a s , according to confidential evidence received by the Commission, had a telephone
bill showing hundreds of dollars worth of calls a month over a period
and was at the same time in receipt of Commonwealth Unemployment
B e n e f i t s---under a number of different n a m e s . Individuals of the kind
being spoken of here are always conscious that their activities may be
the subject of interest by law enforcement agencies. They constantly
take precautions to render surveillance difficult and to expose any
surveillance. They are alert to identify any police informer. Any
informer identified is ruthlessly dealt with. They deal only with
people who are known to them or who are introduced to them by someone
they t r u s t , whose 'credentials' they trust and who they have come to
accept after a period of testing.
It is difficult for law enforcement agencies to identify the precise role of such people in any particular illegal activity which has
occurred or wh i c h has been planned. They are frequently not directly
involved but p rocure others to be involved. Their own involvement,
apart from pr o c u r i n g in the sense just spoken of, m a y be to do any one
or more of p r o c u r i n g or providing f i n a n c e , facilitating intr o d u c t i o n s , co-ordinating activities and providing access to individuals with
p a r ticular skills or attributes (for example forgery or a propensity to violence). Ap a r t from being part of a criminal conspiracy such
individuals do not necessarily commit a criminal o f f e n c e . Their role
varies from activity to activity. Riley is not u n i q u e . He simply
provides an example of the kind of individual, who according to the
evidence received by the Commission, is increasingly being identified by law enforcement authorities as engaged, among other things, in the
illegal importation of drugs into Australia and in the illegal
p r o duction of and trafficking in drugs within Australia.
OBTAINING CONVICTIONS
It must be appreciated that it is one thing for law enforcement
agencies to obtain information and to make observations with
implications of the kind discussed in the preceding paragraph: it is
altogether another thing for them to be in a position to immediately
allocate the resources necessary to pursue the investigation. Even
then, they cannot be assured of obtaining admissible evidence so as to
lead to the conviction of individuals. The reasons for this were
considered earlier in this Chapter in dealing with the concept of
'organised basis' for criminal activities and with the nature and source of evidence available to the Commission. Mention was also made of the
burden on the manpower resources of law enforcement authorities imposed by surveillance and associated methods available to gather information about the individual concerned. Resources are finite, they may already be committed so that an opportunity cannot be exploited. To turn
information into evidence, where it can be d o n e , gives rise to serious
A339
questions in terms of priorities in the allocation of resources of law
enforcement and imposes great demands on the resources allocated
e l s e w h e r e .
For the Commission to be persuaded that there are individuals who
engage on an organised basis in criminal activities of all kinds
(including those referred to in paragraphs (a) and paragraph (c) of the
Terms of Reference) and that m a n y such individuals are known to law
enforcement agencies is therefore not to be taken as necessarily
involving a criticism of the agencies. It perhaps rather reflects that
the agencies ought to be given more discerning and effective support
from all segments of Australian society than they are presently
r e c e i v i n g .
PATTERNS OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CRIMINAL ELEMENTS AND GROUPS
Mention was made earlier of the group of Commonwealth Police
officers which carried out investigations on behalf of the Commission. There is no doubt that many (indeed most) of the individuals identified
and subject to the attention of the group and aspects of their
activities were already in some degree known to elements within law
enforcement agencies. However, on the evidence received, the Commission is inclined to the view that the work of the investigative group
identified the existence of patterns of association among individuals and groups both in various parts of Australia and outside Australia the
full significance of which had not previously been appreciated by law enforcement authorities ---not least because of the absence of an overall view. In addition, certain individuals with strong associations in
organised criminal activities in other countries, particularly the
United States, who had not previously been identified by law enforcement in Australia were identified. That the investigative group was able to
achieve these things was not least because it was less constrained by
the arbitary administrative and territorial divisions previously spoken of as constraining the activities of law enforcement agencies. It
should be mentioned that one area where the investigative group was not
able to give the attention it deserved, owing to limitations of
resources (manpower and accounting skills) and particularly time, was the area of financial transactions and movements of funds within
Australia and to and from Australia b y those engaged in criminal
activities. There is no doubt that there is movement of funds to
purchase drugs overseas. Funds obtained as a consequence of illegal
drug trading must be utilised and dispersed. Confidential evidence was received by the Commission of commercial organisations in and out of
Australia being engaged in treating the proceeds of illegal activities both inside and outside Australia in such a way as to render their
origin undiscernable. As has been said, it was not possible to
investigate these activities in any detail or to evaluate the evidence. There is however no doubt that such activities go on. The matter is
dealt with further in Part XIII Chapter 5, 'Financial Controls'.
Various considerations, substantially those imposed by limitations of time and resources, led to the Commission's investigators
increasingly focussing their attention on connections between
individuals and groups in Australia, particularly, but by no means
A340
exclusively, in Sydney, and individuals and groups in the United States. A number of individuals with criminal records in the United States who
are there regarded by law enforcement authorities as having associated with, and having been involved in, the activities of organised crime in
that country were looked at. What was discovered m a y be summarised as
f o l l o w s :
1. Individuals regarded by United States law enforcement authorities as involved in organised crime visit Australia, particularly Sydney, regularly and wi t h some frequency. They there associate with
individuals regarded by A u s tralian law enforcement authorities as involved in substantial criminal activities.
2. Individuals regarded by United States law enforcement authorities as involved or having been involved in organised crime in that country, in some cases with convictions or outstanding charges relating to
that involvement reside in or about S y d n e y . These people maintain
c ommunication by exchanging visits, by telephone and letter, with
individuals in the United States regarded by law enforcement
authorities there as involved in organised criminal activities.
They regularly associate in Australia with persons regarded by
A u s t ralian law enforcement authorities as involved in substantial criminal activities.
3. Individuals regarded by Australian law enforcement authorities as
engaged in substantial criminal activities or as associates of such individuals visit the United States regularly and frequently and
there associate with persons regarded by United States law
enforcement authorities as involved in organised crime. Between
visits regular communications seem to be maintained.
4. Some of the Australians referred to in the preceding paragraph have
been convicted of offences relating to the illegal importation of
drugs into Australia, the illegal production or trafficking of drugs in Australia or of other offences connected with such activities.
Others are believed by A u s t ralian law enforcement authorities to be involved in such activities. Similarly, some of the individuals in
the United States have been or are suspected of being engaged in the
illegal importation of drugs into the United States or the illegal
production or trafficking of drugs in that country.
5. Some of the Australians referred to and some of the Americans are
known to m aintain common association with individuals in South-East Asia regarded as being involved in drug trafficking.
Some of the associations referred to have been terminated. M a n y ,
however are continuing. Some have existed for a long time, some are of
fairly recent origin. Certain individuals, mainly A m e r i c a n s , have been identified as acting as facilitators of introductions between
Australians of the kinds spoken of and Americans of the kind spoken o f .
To know, however, of associations is not to know of their implications.
To know of the implications there must at least be access to the
substance of communications exchanged and to the subject matter of
discussions which take place on occasions of meeting. It cannot be said
that it necessari'ly follows that the associations referred to between Australians and Americans are directed to the illegal importation of
A341
drugs into Australia or to the illegal production or trafficking of
drugs in Australia. It can be confidently said of some occasions in the
past that associations did have these implications. In others there is
a very strong degree of probabilty they did. Other aspects of the
associations referred to can be said to be directed to criminal
activities having no relationship to drugs. In yet other aspects the
associations are directed to the furtherance of commercial activities of varying degrees of legitimacy in Australia, in the United States or in
other countries.
DOES A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP CONTROL ILLEGAL DRUGS IN AUSTRALIA?
The Commission directed considerable attention to the question of whether there is a single individual or group controlling illegal drug
activities in Australia or in any part of A u s t r a l i a . There are people
committed to the vi e w that there is such an individual or group.
O t h e r s , seemingly less v o c a l , are committed to the opposite view.
A number of witnesses who asserted that there was a controlling
individual or group were f o u n d , upon examination, to be simply repeating something of general circulation within the community or the subject of press reports. The background of these was such that they were not in a
position to be likely to know the facts of which they spoke. Other
witnesses with experience of the drug community as well as members of
that community also made such assertions. It is not, in the
Commission's experience, unknown for drug users to suggest associations or claim a role or a place for themselves in an organisation in order to
impress the Commission or others rather than to reflect the true
situation.
The Commission received evidence, often from marihuana u s e r s , that a single controlling individual or group caused marihuana to be withdrawn from the market so that it could be flooded with heroin. On some
occasions when a witness asserted this another witness from the same
locality, but with a different source of supply, claimed no difficulty in obtaining m a r i h u a n a . On some occasions the shortage was seasonal and marihuana subsequently became available. On other occasions the supply was affected by successful law enforcement action. The Commissioner
found it was always difficult for a proponent of a single controlling
individual or group to identify the area which was the subject of the
alleged control.
There is no doubt that on occasions some individuals in a particular locality who were deprived of access to a supply of marihuana turned to
other drugs and that criminals took advantage of the situation to supply them with heroin. It does not follow, however, that these criminals
brought about the situation. There is furthermore a question-mark in
respect of what the deprived users would have done had heroin not been
available. A number of them certainly would have in any event obtained
access to d r u g s .
A342
On the other hand the Commission was left in no doubt that despite
suggestions b y some user/dealers that there was no need to 'push'
heroin, this drug is potentially so profitable to those who traffic in
it that a v e r y powerful incentive to 'push' it is always there. Those
who could be d e s cribed as victims of the d r u g---the hardcore users whose
d e s p eration leads them to illegal activities to finance their ha b i t---
have no hesitation, as the evidence showed in obtaining money by
p r o moting trade in the d r u g .
The Com m i s s i o n is satisfied that on the basis of the e v i d e n c e , it
cannot be said that there is a single individual or group of individuals
controlling illegal drug related activities in Australia or in any part of Australia. There are rather a series of associations or groups
centred about par t i c u l a r individuals, not necessarily restricted to a par t i c u l a r geographical location or to a particular kind of criminal
activity. There are often, but not necessarily, associations between
v arious g r o u p s . A p a r ticular individual may participate at different
degrees and at different levels in the activities of more than one
group at a par t i c u l a r time. Whilst there is usually a central core to
the group centred on a particular individual and his close associates
the other components of the group will vary from time to time and from
one illegal act i v i t y to another being engaged in at the same time.
Members identified as being part of the central core of a particular
group may be identified as being involved in the activities of another
g r o u p . There are identifiable individuals who provide the
e n t r e p r e n e u r a l , organisational and financial skills necessary to
conduct criminal activities of a substantial and continuing kind. They ma y make some or all of these skills available only to the group or to
the group and others outside it acceptable to them. Such an individual
ma y stand outside any group but be available to anyone who is
a c c e p t a b l e . Some groups or individuals may restrict their activities to d r u g s---others do not. It may be that the increasing tendency for
pe o p l e wi t h criminal backgrounds to be identified as being involved in
drug and drug related offences is an indication that such people are
b e i n g attracted b y the expanding market to the potential of large profit w h i c h u n d o ubtedly exists in the area of drugs. On the other h a n d , it
ma y be that such people have always been involved but have only recently
b e e n so identified.
The evidence of associations between United States and Australian
criminals does not, in the Commission's view, establish that United
States criminals control criminal activities in Australia. It rather
indicates that A u s tralian criminals seek access to the experience and
expertise of United States criminals to assist them in identifying
opportunities and in exploiting those opportunities to the maximum
advantage. The possibility that the United States figures are investing mo n e y in Australia cannot be ignored. The availability to United States enforcement authorities of remedies permitting them to seize and forfeit entire business enterprises in which illegally obtained money has been
invested and increasing concentration on the use of these remedies may
p rovide the n e cessary i m p e t u s .
It is essential to appreciate that the situation being spoken of
in the p r o ceeding paragraphs is not static. By the time this is read it
A343
may have c h a n g e d . For reasons canvassed in dealing with the concept of
1 organised basis' the knowledge of authorities will almost certainly lag
behind the changes. There is something to be said for the view that the
situation outlined ma y present an opportunity for exploitation by an
individual or group seeking to become the controlling influence over the illegal importation, illegal production, and illegal trafficking of
drugs in Australia or in a particular part of Australia.
Another factor which ought to be remarked upon at this stage is that
an increase in the effectiveness of law enforcement in stopping the
illegal importation of drugs into Australia or the illegal production or illegal trafficking in drugs within Australia may provide the occasion for increased involvement by criminals in providing the necessary
sophistication, finance and ruthlessness to cope with the increased
enforcement efficiency.
On the basis of the evidence received by the Commission it is rare
for members of groups of the kind being spoken of as engaging on an
organised basis in illegal activities both related to drugs and not
related to drugs to themselves use d r u g s . People who illegally use
drugs are however utilised by such people to engage in illegal
activities related to drugs of the kind spoken of by Term of Reference
(a) and Term of Reference (c) and otherwise. The use of such people may
be facilitated by the ability to control their supplies of the drug on
which they are d e p e n d e n t . Such use is seen particularly at the lower
levels of distribution.
INVOLVEMENT OF ETHNIC GROUPS
M ention was made earlier of the involvement of persons of a similar
national or ethnic background in certain of the illegal activities
referred to by paragraph (a) or (c) of the Terms of Reference and in
other illegal activities both related and not related to drugs. There
is in the Australian community a tendency for some immigrants,
particularly those whose native tongue is not English, to congregate in discrete communities within the general Australian community. This
occurs both in the larger cities and in certain rural areas. Such an
aggregation may be substantially composed of people from the same place of origin in the home country or with family or clan ties. A proportion
of such an aggregate may never become fluent in English and consequently be dependent on others who a r e . Many such people come from a background
of poor economic cir c u m s t a n c e s . A number come from backgrounds in their country of origin where the production, distribution, and use of d r u g s , wh i c h are prohibited imports in Australia and whose production and use
in Australia is prohibited by Australian law, are part of their daily
lives. Their continued contact with their place of origin gives them
access to a supply of such drugs or makes them knowledgable in the
skills of cultivation. Some of them engage in small crop farming or
similar activities in Australia, an ideal situation for the cultivation
of cannabis.
Among some ethnic or national groups the distrust of public
authority and police is ingrained due to their experience in their
A344
country of origin. There has developed in their society a hierarchy
based on considerations of blood r e l a t i o n s h i p , r e g i o n a l , religious or similar affiliations which is independent of civil authorities. These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , together with the comparative attractiveness of
Australia, par t i c u l a r l y as an opportunity to advance their, or their
children's, economic position, provide opportunities for unscrupulous persons to exploit members of the ethnic or national groups. Such
exploitation m a y include but is not restricted to the engagement on an
organised basis in the illegal importation and/or the illegal production and the illegal trafficking of drugs in Australia. Other activities
involved may be illegal gambling wi t h its associated activities relating to the provision of credit and the collection of debts thereby
i n c u r r e d , br e a c h of the immigration laws, and the perpetration of fraud on authorities responsible for the payment of social service benefits
and workers' compensation. The considerations giving rise to the
opportunity for exploitation usually mean that the exploiters are
members of the same ethnic or national g r o u p .
Ethnic and national groups of the kind considered above existing
within Australian society impose great difficulties on law enforcement. There is a language b a r r i e r . Covert inquiries are very difficult to
c o n d u c t . For law enforcement to infiltrate ethnic groups and
communities almost always requires the use of individuals of the same
ethnic or national background. The groups are tightly knit so that if a
person of a p a r ticular ethnic or national background becomes a member of a law enforcement agency it is generally well known within the
community. Whilst such membership is frequently a matter of pride to
the greater pro p o r t i o n of the community the knowledge makes it very
difficult for the particular law enforcement officer to be used in any
long term penetration. Mention has already been made of the distrust of
some members of ethnic communities of civil a u t h o r i t i e s . They do not
turn to such authorities for assistance or provide them with
information. There may be an incentive for a politician who has a large
constituency with a particular ethnic or national background to bring
pressure to bear if it is thought that a group is receiving attention.
The press, radio and television may tend to publicise the involvement of members of a particular ethnic or national group in any wrongful
activity and this tends to bring about a reaction by members of the
group who have no association wi t h the activity.
Considerations relevant to ethnic groups have been canvassed at some length b ecause the evidence received by the Commission leaves no room
for doubt that there are within the Australian community persons who
engage on an organised basis in the illegal importation, production and trafficking of drugs and who also engage on an organised basis in other
illegal acitivities bo t h related and not related to drugs and who carry
on their activities within an ethnic or national community group the
members of which they exploit for the p u r p o s e . None of this is to say
that Australians do not engage in such activities; much less that any
particular ethnic or national group is to be thereby con d e m n e d . The
situation d o e s , however, give rise to discrete and unique difficulties and so is wo r t h y of separate t r e a t m e n t . It is now proposed to advert to
the effect of the evidence as it dealt with some specific ethnic groups.
A345
Chinese
Evidence received by the Commission establishes that groups of
Chinese have long been involved in the illegal importation into
Australia and in the illegal trafficking in Australia of drugs,
particularly opium and opium derivatives. The evidence further supports the view that whilst originally this activity m ay have been directed to support demand within the Chinese community, in more recent times
sections of this community have become and are involved in the illegal
importation of heroin for distribution outside the Chinese community. The evidence also indicates that the same groups are heavily involved in illegal gambling and associated activity. Whilst the evidence does not permit it to be said that the groups referred to are part of Chinese
secret societies known to be involved in heroin trafficking in other
countries, the evidence is such that it would be unwise to discount this possibility, at least in some cases.
Lebanese and Greek
Groups of persons from the Lebanon are and have for some considerable
time been involved in the illegal importation into Australia and in the distribution within Australia of heroin, cannabis resin and cannabis oil in particular. Such groups are also involved in illegal gambling and
associated activities and also prostitution. Lebanese groups have been known to obtain assistance from Australian criminal groups particularly in the area of distribution. Evidence received by the Commission,
indicated that funds generated by some of the Lebanese groups involved in the illegal importation and trafficking of drugs may be used to
finance political activities in the Lebanon. With the exception of the financing of political activities the comments made in respect of
Lebanese groups a r e , on the evidence, applicable to groups within the
Greek community. In cases of both the Greek and Lebanese communities
some clubs operated by and for the benefit of members of the community
seem to play a considerable role in facilitating the organisation of
illegal activities of all kinds.
T urkish and Italian
Turkish nationals have been identified as involved, in organised
g r o u p s , in the cultivation and distribution of c a n n a b i s . This is
notably so in South Australia and Victoria. The arrests of persons
involved in the cultivation of cannabis in Australia and in its
distribution are characterised by considerable involvement of Italian nationals. Organised groups consisting wholly of Italian nationals have been also identified as being engaged in the illegal importation of
heroin, hashish and hashish oil into Australia and in the illegal
trafficking of these drugs within Australia. Once again there is
involvement of the same groups in illegal gambling and in prostitution. In respect of all groups breaches of the immigration laws and the
foreign exchange control regulations occur.
Investigations carried out on the Commission's behalf indicate a
closer degree of association between p ersons regarded as highly placed in those segments of the Greek, Lebanese, Turkish, Italian and Chinese communities engaged in illegal activities both related to drugs and
A346
otherwise than had previously been thought to be the case. Finally, New
Zealanders: there is evidence that Ne w Zealanders, both alone and in
association wi t h Australians, are notable for their involvement in
large-scale activities involving the illegal importation of drugs into Australia and the trafficking of such drugs in Australia. Evidence
indicated that the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement was mu c h abused for these purposes.
A S S O C IATIONS BETWEEN ILLEGAL D R U G - RELATED ACTIVITIES AND OT H E R ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES
It will be apparent from the foregoing that the evidence received by
the Commission establishes that the illegal importation and the illegal p r o duction and illegal trafficking in drugs are engaged in both directly and indirectly by persons who engage on an organised basis in other
illegal activities both related and not related to d r u g s . The evidence
does not permit the Commission to report on the extent of such
e n g a g e m e n t . Some of the reasons for this were canvassed earlier in this
Chapter. We do not know how much criminal activity of the kinds in
question is undetected. To return to the broad categories used earlier, the p r o portion of illegal importation, production and trafficking by
persons who themselves use drugs as against the proportion by persons
who engage in illegal activities not related to drugs cannot be k n o w n .
Activities of the kind referred to in paragraph (a) or in paragraph (c)
of the Terms of Reference m a y be detected but that they are engaged in
by persons who engage on an organised basis in other illegal activities
is not discovered. The number of occasions on which this occurs cannot
be k n o w n .
Rather than become involved in an attempt to estimate the extent to
w h i c h the illegal activities mentioned in paragraph (a) or in paragraph (c) of the Terms of Reference are engaged in by persons who engage on an
organised basis in other illegal activities (which must ultimately be
so heavily qualified as to make it little more than a guess) there are
some other points which it is important to make. Some, for example the
increasing detection of the involvement of known criminals in offences related to drugs and the increasing propensity to violence, have already b e e n mentioned. When those engaged on an organised basis in illegal
activities other than those mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of the Terms of Reference as well engage in illegal activities of the
kind there m e n tioned they are motivated by the potential profits to do
so on a large scale. They have a vested interest in expanding the
market. Th e y make available skills and bring to bear ruthlessness which greatly increases the difficulty of law enforcement. In other words,
such persons and groups have an impact out of proportion to the numbers
involved in the illegal importation, production, trafficking, and use
of d r u g s .
FINANCIAL REPERCUSSIONS OF D R U G - RELATED CRIME
Finally, drug trafficking puts large sums of money at the disposal
of those who successfully engage in it, directly or indirectly. In 1970
the O r g anised Cfime Control Act became law in the United States. The
statement of findings and purpose which accompanied it stated that the
A347
purpose of the Act was to seek the eradication of organised crime in the
United States by strengthening the legal tool and the evidence gathering p r o c e s s , by establishing new penal prohibitions, and by providing
enhanced sanctions and new remedies to deal with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organised crime. In reporting on the bill which
subsequently became the Act the committee on the judiciary of the House
of Representatives and the committee on the judiciary of the United
States Senate separately expressed themselves to be satisfied that:
1. Organised crime in the United States was a highly sophisticated
diversified and widespread activity that annually drained billions of dollars from the American economy by unlawful conduct in the
illegal use of force, fraud and corruption;
2. Organised crime derived a major portion of its power through money
obtained from such illegal activites as syndicated gambling, loan sharking, the theft and fencing of property, and the importation and distribution of narcotics and other dangerous drugs and other forms of social exploitation;
3. The money and power of organised crime was increasingly used to
infiltrate and corrupt legitimate business and labour unions and to subvert and corrupt the processes of government;
4. Organised criminal activities in the United States were found to
weaken the stability of the national economy, to harm innocent
investors and competing organisations to interfere with free
competition and to seriously b urden interstate and foreign commerce, to threaten domestic security and undermine the general welfare of the nation and c i t i z e n s ;
5. It was considered that organised crime continued to grow because of
defects in the evidence gathering process of the law inhibiting the development of legally admissible evidence necessary to bring
criminal and other sanctions or remedies to bear on the unlawful
activities of those engaged in organised crime and because the
sanctions and remedies available to the government were
unnecessarily limited in scope and impact.
The fourth division of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Crime Statute prepared b y officers of the Organised Crime and Racketeering
Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of Justice in 1978
said:
The realisation is apparent to those of us in law enforcement
that professional and organised crime have infiltrated economic entities in this country and have diverted the revenues to
perpetrate criminal activity and to manipulate our economic
system.
Australia
So far as the Commission is aware little attention has been paid in
Australia to the amount of money generated by illegal activities or to
A348
the extent to which that money finds its way into the general economic
system or to the methods by which they do. It seems that almost nothing
is known of the effect of illegal activities on Australia's economy.
Little is done b y law enforcement, for reasons already c a n v a s s e d , to
identify or strike at the assets accumulated as a consequence of
criminal activities or to cut off the mo n e y flow generated by it and
t hereby inhibit future criminal activities. In Part XIII Chapter 5,
'Financial Controls', this aspect is looked at further. The question of confiscatory provisions and provisions to recover monies accumulated is also dealt w i t h e l s e w h e r e . It is likely that the situation in Australia
does not approach that which so alarmed the respective Judiciary
Committees of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate in 1970. Nevertheless the concerns expressed by those
bodies and reiterated by the section of the United States Department of
Justice most d i rectly concerned wi t h dealing with the problem ought to
serve as a war n i n g to Australia of the situation which m a y develop
unless firmer and more positive steps are taken to deal with all kinds
of criminal a ctivity conducted on an organised basis. There is no
doubt, on the basis of the evidence received b y the Commission, that
m o n e y generated b y all kinds of illegal activities in Australia finds
its way into 'l e g i t i m a t e ' business enterprises. As is mentioned in the
earlier Chapter of this Part of the R e p o r t , heroin consumed in Australia has its origin outside Australia and funds move from Australia to
purchase heroin intended to be illegally imported. Some measure of the
profits available from such activities is provided b y the $75 000 from
selling 60 capsules of heroin daily over a period of two and a half
months in the Victorian case given as an example in the earlier part of
this chapter.
In evidence before the Commission Mr J . B . Donovan, an economist
from W. D. Scott and Associates estimated that the drain on Australia's
overseas funds through the purchase of private gold holdings and drugs
could exceed $A100 million a year. He suggested that most of this
amount would have been spent on the financing of drugs for the
Australian market:
I suspect the purchase of gold has far less affect than the
purchase of drugs but if you take the two together the drain on
overseas funds could exceed $100M a year.
We have chosen the figure of $100 000 000 b e c a u s e , although the
data we used for estimating was very speculative, the real
figure seemed to be far in excess of $100M.
(0T 10258)
In an attempt to test Mr Donovan's evidence the Commission estimated the possible cost to Australia as a consequence of the purchase of
heroin for use by hard core addicts. Two major problems faced the
Commissions attempt. First was to estimate the number of addicts,
secondly was to estimate at what stage w a s , how and when to what extent
heroin was used. In carrying out the exercise the Commission made
calculations on data it had obtained in the course of evidence.
A349
The estimates were made for 1 uncut' 1 first cut' and 'second cut'
heroin at overseas markets and two levels of the Australia wholesale
m a r k e t---'Sydney A' market, where heroin sells in lots of 1 kg, and the
lower level 'Sydney B' market, where heroin sells in lots of 28 grams (1
o z ) . (As explained in Chapter 6 of this Part of the Report, 'cutting'
is adulteration of a drug by mixing it with other materials. In the
case of heroin, a 'cut' probably has the effect of doubling the drug's
weight and halving its purity or diamorphine concentration. Thus, a
'first cut' of 1 kg of 80 per cent pure heroin results in 2 kg of 40 per
cent purity and a 'second cut' results in 4 kg of 20 per cent purity.)
Table IV.28 entitled 'Estimated Wholesale Values of 1 kg Uncut
Heroin - 1979', shows the approximate value of quantities of heroin
equivalent to an original 1 kg of 80 per cent pure heroin at various
overseas and local whole market levels and at various stages of cutting.
The estimates in the Table, based on prices quoted to the Commission by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, clearly illustrate the dramatic rise in the value of the drug as it passes through each
market and each state of cutting. For example, 1 kg of 80 per cent pure
No 3 heroin bought in Bangkok for $A3000 could be worth $A85 700 in an
uncut state if sold in Sydney at 28 gram lots or $171 4000 if sold as 40
per cent pure heroin, or as much as $342 900 if increased to a total of
4 kg of 20 per cent pure heroin by a 'second cut'. Equally 1 kg of No 4
heroin bought in Bangkok for $A8000 could be worth as much as $A428 600
if sold in Sydney in 28 gram lots of 20 per cent pure heroin.
As Chapter 6 of this Part of the Report outlines, the Commission
estimated in one approach to the evidence available, that there couid be between 14 200 and 20 300 hardcore heroin addicts in Australia.
On this basis, and taking into consideration other evidence
suggesting that such addicts would require a total of between 914 and
1303 kg of 80 per cent pure heroin, the Commission considered the
possible implications of this heroin addiction to the Australian economy
in 1979.
These considerations, including allowances for heroin seizures by Australian law enforcement officers, are set out in Table IV.29 entitled 'Estimated Total Wholesale Values of Imported Heroin, 1979'.
This Table shows a wide variety of possibilities. For example if
all heroin imported into Australia in 1979 was bought in an 80 per cent
pure state in Bangkok, the total sum expended could have been as low as
$A2 740 000.
However evidence to the Commission suggested that either of these
examples would represent an over-simplification of the situation. The
following factors also need to be considered:
A350
Table IV.28
Estimated Wholesale Values of 1kg Uncut Heroin - 1979
Market Level
Uncut (1kg) (80% Pure)
1st Cut (2kg) (40% Pure)
2nd Cut (4kg) (20% Pure)
$A
No. 3 Heroin
Bangkok 3000 * *
Kuala Lumpur 5000 * *
Sydney A 35 000 70 000 140 000
Sydney B 85 700 171 400 342 900
No. 4 Heroin
Bangkok 8000 * â k
Kuala Lumpur 12 000 * *
Sydney A 40 000 80 000 160 000
Sydney B 107 100 214 300 428 600
* As is discussed in the text of this section of the Report, the Commission assumed that heroin imported was of high purity. Therefore calculations are not made for 'cut' heroin bought at Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.
Table IV.29
Estimated Total Wholesale Values of Imported Heroin - 1979
Uncut 1st Cut 2nd Cut
(80% Pure) (40% Pure) (20% Pure)
Quantity Imported 914â 1303 1828â 2605 3656â 5210
(kg)
Market Level $A Million
No. 3 Heroin
Bangkok 2.74â 3.91 * *
Kuala Lumpur 4.57â 6.52 * *
Sydney A 31.99â 45.61 63.98â 91.18 127.96â 182.35
Sydney B 78.34â 111.69 156.69â 223.29 313.37â 446.57
No. 4 Heroin
Bangkok 7.31â 10.42 * *
Kuala Lumpur 10.97â 15.64 * *
Sydney A 36.56â 52.12 73.12â 104.20 146.24â 208.40
Sydney B 97.93â 139.61 195.86â 279.11 391.71â 558.21
* As is discussed in the text of this section of the Report, the Commission assumed that heroin imported was of high purity. Therefore calculations are not made for âcut1 heroin bought at Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.
A351
* Evidence indicated that heroin known to have entered Australia in
substantial shipments were often of high purity. Although many small amounts of heroin seized have proved to be of low purity when
analysed, the Commission assumes that the majority of heroin bought into Australia as part of large scale importation w o u l d , for ease of concealment and maximum return, be of high purity.
* Police evidence suggested that although a predominance of either No
3 or the more expensive No 4 heroin might occur in some Australian
cities from time to t i m e , both forms were being imported regularly.
* Although many of the more spectacular seizures of heroin have been
associated with Bangkok not all heroin is bought there. For
example, the largest detected shipment of heroin into Australia ---13.5 kg in September 1979 ---was aboard a ship that had come from
South East Asian ports other than Bangkok.
The most important consideration, however, would appear to be the
amounts of money generated within Australia at the Î ' and 'B ' market
l evels. The Commission has no doubt that a proportion of this money
leaves Australia, either to buy more heroin on foreign markets or simply to be 'laundered'.
Assuming that most heroin enters Australia in a relatively pure
form, it would appear that the amount of money needed simply to buy the
estimated total quantity of the drug in overseas markets ranges from
$A2 740 000 (if 914 kg of pure No 3 heroin was bought in Bangkok) to
$A15 640 000 (if 1303 kg of pure No 4 was bought in Kuala Lumpur).
These estimates of the amounts of money required to buy heroin in
overseas m a r k e t s , however, do not take into consideration the further
amounts generated on the Australian wholesale market, particularly at the higher 'A' level.
Evidence discussed in Chapter 5 of this Part of the Report suggests
that it would be the Î ' level trafficker who also imports heroin, or
arranges such importations.
As such this Î ' level wholesaler would appear to be the trafficker
most likely to send money overseas. Firstly the money is required to
make heroin purchases and secondly because this trafficker might be
supplying several 'B ' level traffickers larger amounts of money are
being accumulated by Î ' level traffickers. The amounts involved at
this level clearly lead to the assumption that 'laundering' could become
a necessity.
It should be stressed that these amounts take no account of heroin
imported for users other than hard-core addicts. It takes no account of imported hashish or hashish oil or cannabis in 1 stick' form.
A352
When these are taken into consideration, Mr J. B. Donovan's estimate of $A100 million being drained from Australia's overseas funds would appear to be no underestimation.
The Commission also noted that without allowance for further cutting the 'street' value of the estimated supply of heroin required by hard core addicts could be between $A1000 and 1600 million. This estimate may overstate the actual amount spent by hard core addicts since some
addicts may purchase direct from a wholesaler.
The estimate of $A1000 and 1600 million compares with final private consumption expenditure on alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco for 1978â 79 of $A3696 and 1319 million respectively. This would suggest that the full impact of illegal drug activities on the economy of Australia could be quite significant.
The financial implications of criminal activities as related to drugs are further dealt with in Part XIII, Chapter 5.
CONCLUSIONS
It is now convenient to summarise the Commission's conclusions in
respect of the subject matter of paragraph (d) of the Terms of
R e f e r e n c e .
1. There is no doubt that the illegal importation, illegal production
and illegal trafficking in drugs is engaged in, both directly and
indirectly, by persons who engage on an organised basis in other
illegal activities both related and not related to drugs.
2. It is not possible to responsibly estimate the extent of the
involvement referred to in 1 above. However:
(a) There is evidence that those who engage on an organised basis in
illegal activities not related to drugs are increasingly involved in the illegal importation, production and trafficking in drugs ---
particularly the illegal importation of and trafficking in heroin.
(b) The access of the individuals referred to in (a) to large sums of
money---often generated by illegal activities, their knowledge and the contacts they have acquired in the course of their other illegal
activities, their ruthlessness and greed mean that the engagement of such people in the illegal importations or production of or
trafficking in drugs has a far greater effect than the engagement of
an equivalent number of people not engaged on an organised basis in
illegal activities unrelated to drugs.
(c) Dealing with criminals of the kind spoken of in paragraph 1 above
and in (a) and (b) hereof places a much greater burden on law
enforcement than does dealing with those without the characteristics referred to in (b) hereof and without the shield of an organised
basis. ,
A353
3. Law enforcement agencies are constrained by State and Territorial boundaries and considerations of statutory power and organisational responsibility which do not constrain those engaged on an organised basis in illegal activities both related and not related to dr u g s . The existing organisation of law enforcement, geared as it is to
react to complaints by individuals and to identify and obtain
convictions of individuals identified as having carried out criminal activities in many respects is inapposite to deal with criminal
activities engaged in on an organised basis by persons who engage
directly, and particularly indirectly, in such activities.
Similarly the powers given law enforcement agencies and the
consequences of such an organised basis being identified are in many respects inapposite or lacking.
4. There have been and there are associations between individuals
regarded by United States law enforcement authorities as involved in organised crime and individuals regarded by Australian law
enforcement authorities as involved in substantial criminal
activities. Some of these associations have been and are directed to criminal activities which involved the illegal importation, the illegal production and the illegal trafficking in dr u g s .
5. There are sections of some ethnic groups which, perhaps because of
their isolation from the Australian community and their continuing ties with their place of origin, are prone to exploitation by
certain of their own countrymen. There is no doubt that some such
groups have engaged and are engaging in criminal activities such as illegal gambling, prostitution and in the illegal production,
importation and trafficking in drugs and that in these activities are engaged in on an organised basis.
6 . Those who p roduce, import or traffic in drugs and many of those who
use drugs are in any event engaged in other illegal activities to
facilitate the production, importation, trafficking or u s e . If these activities are carried out over time and on a scale of any
magnitude they have necessarily an organised basis---as do other
related illegal activities such as violence, theft and crimes of dishonesty.
7. The illegal importation, production, trafficking and use of drugs involves money on a scale which almost certainly has an effect on
the Australian economy---an implication which has to date received little attention.
It is not proposed in this Chapter of the Report to make specific
recommendations directed to dealing with problems identified in
reporting on the matters raised by paragraph (d) of the Terms of
Reference. The Commission makes throughout its report a number of
recommendations dealing with the adequacy of existing laws and of
existing law enforcement (including arrangements for co-operation between law enforcement agencies) all of which bear, in varying degrees, upon dealing more effectively with those who engage on an organised
basis in illegal activities both related and not related to dr u g s . In
particular, but not extensively, reference may be made to
recommendations made in respect of Part VI Chapters 5, 6 and 7 Part VIII Chapter 6 Part XIII Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and to Part XIV.
A354
Part V
Legislation
P a r t y Legislation
C h a p t e r 1. I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n s
C h a p t e r 2 . L e g i s l a t i v e P o w e r s and J u r i s d i c t i o n
C h a p t e r 3 . C o m m o n w e a l t h L e g i s l a t i o n ( O f f e n c e s an d
P e n a l t i e s )
C h a p t e r 4 . S t a t e a n d T e r r i t o r y L e g i s l a t i o n ( O f f e n c e s
a n d P e n a l t i e s )
C h a p t e r 5. I n t e r c e p t i o n o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n s
C h a p t e r 6. S e a r c h e s an d S e i z u r e s
C h a p t e r 7. A r r e s t , Bail a n d C o n f i s c a t i o n
C h a p t e r 8 . C o m p u l s o r y T r e a t m e n t
C h a p t e r 9 . H e a l t h L e g i s l a t i o n
C h a p t e r 10 . M o t o r T r a f f i c a n d I n d u s t r i a l L e g i s l a t i o n
T h i s P a r t s u r v e y s the p r e s e n t l a w c o n t r o l l i n g d r u g s in
A u s t r a l i a . It d o e s t h i s f i r s t by c o n s i d e r i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l
c o n v e n t i o n s a n d t h e n A u s t r a l i a n d o m e s t i c law, b o t h C o m m o n Â
w e a l t h a n d S t a t e . U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g ' L e g i s l a t i v e P o w e r s a n d
J u r i s d i c t i o n ' in C h a p t e r 2, the s o u r c e a n d a m b i t o f the
l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r o f the C o m m o n w e a l t h P a r l i a m e n t a n d of the
S t a t e P a r l i a m e n t s is e x a m i n e d .
C e r t a i n a r e a s o f the l a w w e r e f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d by
w i t n e s s e s b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h e s e h a v e b e e n a c c o r d e d
s e p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t in C h a p t e r s 6 a n d 7 to a s s i s t the r e a d e r
to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t the A u s t r a l i a n d o m e s t i c l a w p r o v i d e s on
t h e s e a r e a s , s u c h as p o w e r s o f a r r e s t a n d p o w e r s o f s e a r c h .
As the P a r t is c o n c e r n e d w i t h s u r v e y i n g the l a w as it
s t a n d s , n o c o n c l u s i o n s or r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e m a d e in t h i s
P a r t . T h e y w i l l be m a d e l a t e r in the R e p o r t .
A355
A356
Chapter 1 International Conventions
Australia is a signatory to two international drug conventions: The
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and The Convention on
Psychotropic Substances 1971.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961
The first agreement to initiate the concept of international co operation in the control of narcotics as a matter of international law
was the Hague Convention of 1912. Twenty-five countries originally
signed the Convention and Great Britain signed on behalf of Australia.
The convention laid down that:
- trade in o p i u m , heroin, morphine and codeine must be controlled by
l a w ;
- parties were obliged to prohibit the trade in opium prepared for
smoking and to gradually suppress its manufacture and u s e ; and
- manufacture, sale and use of manufactured drugs were to be confined
to medical and scientific purposes.
With the setting up of the League of Nations at the end of the First
World War the Hague Convention was included in the Treaty of Peace and
the League was entrusted with general supervision of international drug agreements. The League's Council was responsible for two drug
conferences held in Geneva in 1925. The first conference dealt solely
with opium but the second conference, known as The Geneva Convention of
19 February 1925, covered all narcotic drugs then being used in medical
p r a c t i c e . This latter treaty, which was ratified by Australia, set up
an independent Permanent Control Opium Board (PCOB) to administer its
provisions, and it introduced a system of national import and export
permits which related to annual estimates of nations' drug requirements. However, this convention did not provide limits for companies
manufacturing narcotics nor could it limit acreages of opium poppies.
This flaw resulted in the Limitation Convention of 1931 which set up the
Drug Supervisory Body and made provision for extending annual estimates to cover the limitation of manufacture. Later in 1931 a further
agreement, The Convention on the Suppression of Opium Smoking was signed by six countries having possessions and territories in the Far East.
These conventions reduced significantly the diversions of legally produced drugs into the illicit market. However, the problem of
illegally produced drugs remained. Therefore, in 1936 the Conference
for the Suppression of Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs was held in
Geneva. Australia did not become a party to this convention.
After the Second World War international drug control functions were transferred from the League of Nations to the United Nations. Various
machinery amendments had to be made to the previous conventions and
these were achieved in the 1946 Protocol. Two years later the existing
A357
conventions were amended by the 1948 Protocol which enabled those
conventions to regulate the recently developed, synthetic narcotic
d r u g s . Australia was a party to both protocols.
In 1953 a United Nations conference was held to conclude an
agreement to reduce the number of countries producing opium for export. It resulted in the Opium Protocol of 1953. Australia became a party-to
this protocol in 1955. It attracted little international support and
did not come into force until 1963, 10 years after its formulation.
By the mid-1950s there was enough impetus for moves to create a
single instrument codifying the existing conventions and protocols. The result was the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 which
terminated, for parties to it, all previous conventions and protocols except the 1936 Convention. Its two main features are:
* the replacement of the PCOB and the Drug Supervisory Body by a
single body, the International Narcotics Control Board; and
* a requirement that parties give special attention to the provision
of facilities for the medical treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug-dependent pers o n s .
Australia attended the conference and signed the convention in 1961 and, after obtaining the written agreement of the State Premiers, ratified it in December 1967.
Australia ratified the 1972 Protocol Amending The Single Convention in November 1972. This amendment was designed further to strengthen
national and international efforts to curb the increasing illicit
traffic in heroin and opium by increasing the International Narcotics Control Board's powers and by making provisions to facilitate
international extradition of narcotics traffickers.
The Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971
Concern by the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs over the increasing abuse of certain types of psychotropic substances such as
hallucinogens, stimulants, barbiturates and tranquillisers led to an international conference in Geneva in 1971. Strong lobbying from some manufacturing countries to have many of these substances removed from the suggested scope of such a treaty resulted in a number of the
barbiturates not being included in the final draft which became the
Convention.
Australia was represented at this Conference and signed preparatory to ratification. Ratification has not yet taken place due to delays in
bringing Commonwealth Territory legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug
Trafficking and Drug Abuse 1971 (the Marriott Committee) was prepared at a time when this Convention was open for signature and ratification.
The Committee recorded the following view:
A3 58
The Committee fully supports Australian participation in this C o n vention w h i c h is now available for s i g n a t u r e . It suggests
that the Commonwealth Government and State Governments take the necessary steps so that Australia can ratify the new Convention as soon as possible. In making this suggestion the Committee
is aware of the five year delay wh i c h occurred between
Australia's signature and ratification of the 1961 Convention. A similar delay would be intolerable, in the Committee's view.
Australia signed the Convention on 23 December 1971 and the States
b rought their legislation into conformity, the last being in November
1972.
O n 4 Ma r c h 1976 the Commonwealth Government agreed to ratify the
Convention and authorised the p r e p aration of appropriate Territory
legislation. At the same time it authorised the preparation of
additional C o m m o nwealth legislation which has since been enacted in the form of the Psychotropic Substances Act 1976.
O n the opening day of its h e a r i n g s , namely 17 November 1977, this
Commission was told that Commonwealth Territory legislation was still deficient wi t h respect to psychotropic substances although Commonwealth and State legislation had been brought into line. The Commission was
further told that action would be taken to ratify the Convention as soon
as possible. Since then the Commission has on several occasions pressed bo t h health and legal authorities to take all necessary steps so that
the Convention may be ratified. Regrettably, conflicting and confusing statements have b e e n made to the Commission as to what defect in
T e rritory legislation is inhibiting ratification.
If Australia is to preserve its international reputation in this
field, deficiencies such as this must not be allowed to c o n t i n u e .
A359
A360
Chapter 2 Legislative Powers and Jurisdiction
INTRODUCTION
Australian legislation on drugs is the result of the exercise of
legislative power by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia or by the legislature of a State or Territory. This diversity of
legislation is a result of the division of Commonwealth--State powers
under the Australian Constitution.
The Commonwealth Parliament has limited powers. There is a definite list of subjects on which it can make laws, most of which are to be
found in Section 51 of the Constitution. Thus the Commonwealth
Parliament has power to legislate on such 1 national' subjects as
overseas tra d e , defence, customs, quarantine and immigration. The
validity of any Commonwealth law depends upon its being referable to a
specific head of Commonwealth pow e r ; for example, the Commonwealth
Parliament has no power to legislate as to crime or drugs generally, but
it does have power to legislate as to crime relating to any of the heads
of Commonwealth power. T h u s , under its power in respect of overseas
trade and commerce, the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to deny
access to or have control over various goods, including d r u g s , entering or leaving Australia.
The exercise of the same Commonwealth power is reflected in those
provisions of the Customs Act, which prohibit the importation into, or
exportation out of, Australia of various drugs and other articles, such as pipes, etc., associated with drug use although it may be that these
provisions are incidental to the Commonwealth's power to control duties of Customs (Section 86). Commonwealth control over drugs is, however,
restricted in that no offences involving the use or possession of drugs
or articles associated with the use of drugs, without the element of
illegal importing or exporting, exist under the Customs Act and if they
did could not be supported by the Commonwealth's power in respect of
overseas trade and commerce and the control of Customs.
State Parliaments have w i d e r , more general, powers than the
Commonwealth Parliament. Generally speaking, they have power to
legislate in respect of the p e a c e , order and good government of their
States unless there has been a valid exercise of Commonwealth power in
respect of the same subject matter. T h u s , the several States are
constitutionally responsible for such localised matters as education, local government, health and hospitals, law enforcement and the
administration of justice generally. The Northern Territory is in a
similar position to the States. The A.C.T. is usually more
restricted ---it is not self-governing and must depend on the exercise of
Commonwealth power to a great degree.
State legislative controls over drugs are not, as are those of the
Commonwealth, restricted to the requirement of the existence of the
element of illegal importation or exportation or similar restricted head of power, but may deal with the use and/or possession of drugs, dealing
A361
or trafficking in d r u g s , the supplying of drugs and the possession of
things such as pipes, e t c . , used for the taking of d r u g s , no matter what
their origin.
This Commonwealth--State division of power may be seen as both
advantageous and disadvantageous in so far as the general legislative
control of drugs is concerned. It is advantageous because, under
international law, the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Parliament
extends to a considerable distance seaward around the Australian coast, whereas the State P a r l i a m e n t s , in the absence of a Commonwealth
Parliament, would have their jurisdictions confined to this distance
seaward of their respective coastlines. The extent of Australia's
jurisdiction seaward of the coast is discussed in the following section entitled 'Extra-territorial j u r i s d i c t i o n ' . The division of power is disadvantageous because of the constitutional difficulties it imposes on any attempt to introduce uniform legislation of any kind throughout
Australia. These difficulties are discussed in the section on
'Commonwealthâ State powers'.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
In accordance with international law Australia (i.e., the
Commonwealth of Australia) exercises certain controls over defined areas of the sea adjacent to the coast. These areas are:
* the Territorial Sea,
* the Contiguous Zone,
* the Continental Shelf, and
* the Exclusive Fishing Zone.
The Territorial Sea
This is the area extending from the coastline of a country to a
distance from the shore commonly fixed at 3 nautical miles. All of the
laws of a coastal country are applicable and may be enforced within the
limits of its Territorial Sea. Thus, the laws of the Commonwealth of
Australia are applicable to the area adjoining her coast to a distance
of 3 nautical miles from the shore.
Indications from the recent series of 'Law of the S e a ' conferences
are that the limits of the Territorial Sea will be extended to 12
nautical miles, which of course indicates that in the near future
Australian law will be applicable to a distance of 12 nautical miles
from the coast.
The Contiguous Zone
Article 24 of the International Convention on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zones (to which Australia is a signatory) provides that:
A362
1. In a zone of the High Seas contiguous to its Territorial S e a , a
coastal State ma y exercise the control necessary to:
(a) prevent the infringement of its c u s t o m s , fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations within its territory or Territorial S e a ; and
(b) punish an infringement of the above regulations committed
within its Territorial Sea.
2. The exercise of such control ma y not extend beyond 12 nautical miles
from the b aseline from which the b readth of the Territorial Sea is
m e a s u r e d .
The effect of this p r ovision is that Australia may control acts of
f oreign nationals and foreign vessels in its Contiguous one (i.e., the
area of wa t e r extending 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which
the br e a d t h of the Territorial Sea is measured) but only for the defined
purposes, i.e., the prevention of any infringement of Australian law
relating to customs, revenue, immigration, health and q u a r a n t i n e .
Punitive measures ( e .g ., arrest and judicial proceedings) may be taken only in respect of infringements committed within her Territorial Sea.
Australia is also a signatory to the International Convention on the H i g h Seas, wh i c h creates the right of a coastal State to pursue a
foreign vessel outside the area of the Territorial Sea or Contiguous
Zone of that State when the competent authorities of that State have
good reason to believe that such vessel has violated the laws and
regulations of the State. The pursuit must be commenced when the
foreign vessel or one of its boats is within the Territorial Sea or
Contiguous Zone of the coastal State and may only be continued outside
those areas if the pursuit is not interrupted. The right of pursuit
ceases as soon as the ship pursued enters the Territorial Sea of its own
country or of a third State.
The Continental Shelf
Another convention to which Australia is a signatory is the
International Convention on the Continental Shelf, Article 2 of which
provides that a coastal State exercises sovereign rights over the
continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its
natural r e s o u r c e s .
The Convention defined the 1 continental s h e l f ' of a country as
being:
(a) the sea-bed and subsoil of submarine areas adjacent to the coast but
outside the area of the Territorial Sea to a depth of 200 metres or,
beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters
admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said
a r e a s ; and
A363
(b) the sea-bed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the
coasts of islands.
Consequently, Australia has the right of exclusive control over the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of its continental shelf to the limits contained in the above definition. A foreign vessel may not explore that area or exploit those resources without Australia's
consent, and, accordingly, Australia may take such m e a s u r e s , including punitive m e a s u r e s , as may be necessary to prevent and/or punish any
infringement of her rights in this area.
The Exclusive Fishing Zone
This zone is identical with the contiguous zone referred to earlier (i.e. , it is the area of water extending 12 nautical miles from the
baseline from wh i c h the breadth of the Territorial Sea is measured), and was created b y the International Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Natural Resources (to which Australia is a signatory). The
main effect of the convention was to recognise the right of a country to
fish the seas adjacent to its coast to a distance of 12 nautical miles
seaward (the exclusive fishing zone) to the exclusion of the nationals of other countries.
Australia, along with all coastal states, has the exclusive right to fish in this z o n e , and may exercise the control necessary, including
punitive m e a s u r e s , to prevent and/or punish any infringement of her
rights in this zone.
It is pertinent to note that while international law currently
recognises a 12 nautical mile exclusive fishing zone, Australia has now followed the lead of a number of other countries by passing the
necessary legislation enabling it to declare a 200 nautical mile
exclusive fishing zone around Australia and its territories. The
legislation received the Royal Assent in August 1978, and came into
operation on the first day of November, 1979. From that date therefore
Australian domestic law imposes a 200 nautical mile fishing zone in
accordance with a growing international practice.
COMMONWEALTH--STATE POWERS
It may be that the Commonwealth alone has the necessary power to
implement legislation relevant to a particular subject matter, or it may be that such power is solely within the province of the States, or it
ma y be that full implementation of the legislation requires a joint
exercise of Commonwealth--State p o w e r s . Finally it may be that both the Commonwealth and States possess some legislative power in the particular area, but the extent of their respective powers is uncertain so that
some form of legislative co-operation is necessary. Such considerations are relevant to a discussion of an Australia-wide approach to drug
p r o b l e m s .
A3 64
The C o m m onwealth Parliament will only have the necessary power to
fully implement legislation if all matters covered by the legislation
are referable to the heads of Commonwealth p o w e r . For present purposes
these may be taken to be substantially the 39 heads of power enumerated
in Section 51 of the Constitution. A perusal of these heads suggests
that there is no subject to which general legislation directed against
drug trafficking could be r e f e r a b l e , apart from the possibility that the Commonwealth ma y be able to rely on its external affairs power.
This power authorises the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate to
give effect to obligations incurred under an international treaty. It
was originally thought that the power only authorised legislation giving effect to the subject matter of a treaty which was otherwise covered by
another pa r a g r a p h of Section 51 of the Constitution. The decision of
the Hi g h Court of Australia in the case of R. V. B u r g e s s ; ex parte Goya
H e n r y (1936) 55 C.L.R. 608, rejected this view and established the
external affairs power as a separate and independent power quite apart
from any of the other paragraphs of Section 51. The Burgess case also
established that the external affairs power authorises some Commonwealth intrusion into State legislative authority b y holding that the
Commonwealth Parliament could give effect to a treaty, the
implementation of wh i c h would require legislation affecting the domestic order of the Commonwealth.
If there was an international convention on drug trafficking the
Commonwealth may be able to rely on the external affairs power as
authority for the implementation of any necessary legislation to give
effect to obligations incurred under such convention. The legislation w o u l d have to be substantially in accordance with the provisions of the
convention ( R . - v - P o o l e ; ex parte Henry (1939) 61 C.L.R. 634).
There is a v i e w that the external affairs power is not limited in
its operation to legislation implementing specific treaties but extends to authorise legislation wi t h respect to all matters that come within
the expression 'external affairs'. If this view is correct, the power
w o u l d authorise the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate on any subject, notwiths t a n d i n g that such subject is normally within the exclusive
legislative power of the S t a t e s , providing the subject can be brought
w i t h i n the connotation of the term 1 external affairs'. On this view,
the power would authorise the Commonwealth Parliament to enact a drug
trafficking Act having Australia-wide application since drug trafficking and associated matters are now of international concern and the subject of the international conventions referred to in Chapter I of this Part.
Another avenue by which the Commonwealth could obtain the necessary po w e r to implement drug trafficking legislation is the referral power
contained in Section 51 (xxxvii) of the Constitution. Under this power
the Commonwealth can legislate 'with respect to matters referred to it
b y the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the
law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is
referred, or which afterwards accept the l a w ' .
A365
T h e r e f o r e , through the use of this power the Commonwealth
P a r l i a m e n t , wi t h the co-operation of the S t a t e s , could gain the power it lacks to legislate on all aspects of drug trafficking. To achieve
uniformity, h o w e v e r , it would be necessary for the States to act in
concert in referring the necessary powers. Alternatively, one of the
States could refer such powers and the other States would adopt the
ensuing Commonwealth legislation. The main difficulty with this
approach is that the States cannot refer any matter to the Commonwealth
permanently and therefore the permanency of any Commonwealth legislation enacted under this power would depend entirely on the continued support of each of the States.
While it is often maintained that the division of power leads to
legalistic interpretations which fetter the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament over the Australian continent, it is often forgotten that
certain national purposes which cannot be achieved by the Commonwealth under its present legislative powers may yet be promoted through
Commonwealth--State legislative co-operation.
A common form of legislative co-operation is to be seen in the
'pooling' or joint exercise of legislative p o w e r s . An example of this
is provided by what is now referred to as the Uniform Companies Act.
The Commonwealth used its special powers to enact the Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Act 1972, while each of the six States brought in a company
law in similar terms within its own S t a t e , the result being that the law
relating to companies is now similar throughout Australia. If proposed drug trafficking legislation were such that neither the States nor the Commonwealth alone had the necessary power to implement it, the desired result could be achieved by a joint exercise of powers, similar to that
described above.
Perhaps the most significant form of legislative co-operation
practised in recent years is embodied in the Petroleum (Submerged) Lands Act 1967 of the Commonwealth and States. This legislation was enacted
b y the Commonwealth and States to give effect to an agreement reached
between them on the principles which should govern the exploration and exploitation of the petroleum resources of the seabed adjacent to the
Australian coast. It consists of one Commonwealth Act and six State
Acts which 'mirror' one another. In other words, the provisions of the
Acts covering exploitation of petroleum resources---the mining code---are identical.
The object of this 'mirroring' legislation is to ensure that, if any litigation occurs in a particular area with respect to the exploration or exploitation of petroleum, a court would find that either
Commonwealth p ower or State power operated in the area. To ensure that
the Commonwealth Act is not applied to the exclusion of a State Act (by
virtue of its inconsistency) the Commonwealth Act provides that it is
'not the intention of the Act' to affect the operation of any Act of a
State or Territory. Also, to prevent any duplication of the statutory
application of adjacent legal systems it is provided that where any
right has been created or obligation imposed under either Act then, to
the extent to which there is a discharge of the obligation or the
A366
exercise of the right under the one Act, the right or obligation under
the other Act is not exercisable or is extinguished.
One problem that has arisen in connection with 'mirror' legislation is that the view has emerged that such identical legislation actually
constitutes a referral of the matter by the States to the Commonwealth.
While this view has yet to be proved correct, the States have guarded
against such a possibility by inserting in such legislation a provision stating that if such legislation does constitute a referral, then the
matter is not so referred.
If any aspect of proposed drug trafficking legislation covers an
area in w h i c h the extent of State and Commonwealth legislative authority is uncertain the use of 'mirror' legislation could remove any
difficulties caused b y such uncertainty.
In summary it ma y be said that unless the external affairs power is
sufficient authority for the Commonwealth Parliament to implement all aspects of any proposed drug trafficking legislation, uniformity of such legislation can only be achieved b y Commonwealth--State co-operation. The co-operation m a y take the form of the use of the referral power, the
'pooling' or joint exercise of Commonwealth--State p o w e r s , the use of
'mirror' legislation or it ma y take the form of a new method of coÂ
operation yet to be devised. But whatever the method u s e d , uniformity
will not be achieved unless all of the States act in c o n c e r t .
A367
A368
Chapter 3 C o m m o n w ea lth L e g isla tio n (O ffe n c e s and P e n a ltie s )
Existing Commonwealth legislation relevant to the Commission's Terms of Reference is to be found in the Customs Act 1901, the Customs
Regulations made under that Act, the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 and the
Psychotropic Substances Act 1976. Other provisions with a bearing on
the use of drugs are found in the National Health Act 1951 and the
Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. Existing laws relating to offences and
penalties are set out in chart form at the end of this chapter.
THE CUSTOMS ACT
When the Commonwealth of Australia came into being on the first day
of January 1901 the collection and control of duties of Customs passed
to the Commonwealth from the States by virtue of Section 86 of the
Constitution. It became an exclusive power of the Commonwealth. A
Customs Act was one of the first bills introduced when the first
Commonwealth Parliament met. That piece of legislation, as amended,
remains in force today. It established the necessary legal and
administrative framework to maintain and operate a Customs barrier. The actual rates of duties to be levied on goods are provided for in
separate Customs Tariff Acts, which are amended continually in
accordance with government economic policy. Customs duties provide not only an important source of revenue but also a major control on overseas
trade. The provisions of the Customs Act itself are designed primarily
to achieve those ends. The power to prohibit the importation and
exportation of goods has been held to be incidental to the exercise of
these functions, but may also be supported by the power of the
Commonwealth with respect to overseas trade and commerce.
Control of Goods
All goods imported and all goods for export are subject to the
control of Customs. In general in the case of importation an entry
document must be filed, and goods so imported are normally not released
until payment of whatever duties may be appropriate.
Prohibited Imports and Exports
Certain categories of goods may be and are declared to be prohibited
imports or prohibited exports. The importation or exportation of such
goods may be prohibited absolutely or unless special conditions are
complied with and licences are obtained. All such goods are encompassed by the terms 'prohibited imports' and 'prohibited exports'.
Goods absolutely prohibited for import are set out in the Customs
(Prohibited Imports) Regulations Schedule 1. They include such goods as pipes and accessories for opium smoking. Opium itself and some 76 or so
other narcotics or dangerous drugs are contained in Schedule 4. Their
importation is prohibited unless specified conditions, restrictions and requirements are complied w i t h . These conditions are imposed by the
Director-General of Health and are discussed below. Corresponding
provisions exist 'for prohibited exports.
A369
The principal offences dealing with smuggling and the importation and exportation of prohibited goods are found in Section 233 of the
Customs Act. 'Smu g g l i n g 1 means any importation, introduction or
exportation of goods or any attempt to do so, with intent to defraud the
revenue (Section 4(1)). It therefore has little relevance to prohibited goods. In the original Act the importation of opium (along with spirits and tobacco) was prohibited unless contained in prescribed packages. However, by a proclamation made under the Act on 30 December 1905 the
importation of opium prepared for smoking was prohibited absolutely and opium for medicinal purposes was prohibited except for persons holding special licences. In 1967 offences were introduced relating
specifically to 1 narcotic goods' defined to mean goods that consist of a narcotic s u b s t a n c e . 1 Narcotic s u b s t a n c e 1 is in turn defined to mean the substances set out in the sixth schedule to the Act: cannabis,
diacetylmorphine (heroin) and opium are examples. The schedule now
contains over 100 s u b stances.
Special Offences Relating to Narcotic Goods
It is an o f f e n c e :
* to be in possession of any prohibited imports that are narcotic
goods on board any ship or aircraft (Section 233B ( 1 ) ( a ) ) ;
* to import or attempt to import into Australia any prohibited imports
that are narcotic goods (Section 233B(l)(b));
* to export or attempt to export from Australia any prohibited exports
that are narcotic goods (Section 2 33B(1)(b));
* to be in possession or attempt to obtain possession of such
prohibited imports imported into Australia in contravention of the Act or reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia in contravention of the Act (Sections 233B(l)(c) and 2 33B(1)(ca));
* to conspire with another person or other persons to import into
Australia any prohibited imports that are narcotic goods or to
export from Australia any prohibited exports that are narcotic goods
(Section 233B(1) (cb));
* to aid, abet, counsel or procure, or be knowingly concerned in, the
importation into Australia of any prohibited imports that are
narcotic goods or the exportation from Australia of any prohibited exports that are narcotic goods (Section 233B(1)(d));
* to fail to disclose to an officer on demand any knowledge in a
person's possession or power concerning the importation or intended importation into Australia of any prohibited imports that are
narcotic goods or the exportation or intended exportation from
Australia of any prohibited exports that are narcotic goods (Section
233B(1) ( e ) ); *
* being the master of a ship or boat or the pilot of an aircraft, to
use the ship, boat or aircraft, or knowingly suffer her to be
used...in the importation of any narcotic goods in contravention of
Smuggling, etc.
A370
the Act, or in the exportation or conveyance of any narcotic goods
in contravention of the Act (Section 233A(2)(b)); and
* for two or more persons to assemble for the purpose of importing,
p r e venting the seizure, or rescuing after seizure, of any prohibited imports that are narcotic g o o d s ...(Section 231).
A general p r o v i s i o n relating to conspiracies to commit Commonwealth offences is to be found in the Crimes Act 1914, Section 86.
Special Penalties for Narcotics Offences
The above offences are not given individual penalties. Instead a
pe r s o n found guilty of any of these offences is sentenced in accordance
wi t h the complex set of provisions in Section 235. It will be noted
that, 1 trafficking' or 1 dealing' in drugs as such are not made o f f e n c e s ; it is the act of importing or exporting of drugs or actions incidental
to it (including having possession of the drugs) that constitute the
o f f e n c e . The attempt to discriminate between drug traffickers and
other drug offenders is made only in the provisions relating to p e n a l t y .
There are four factors which affect the determination of which
m a x i m u m pe n a l t y will apply to a given offender. They a r e :
* the q u antity in which the drug involved was present;
* whether the drug was c a n n a b i s ;
* whether the drug was held for sale or other commercial dealing; and
* whether it is a 1 first o f f e n c e ' within the m eaning of the section.
The quantity of the drug may fall into one of three categories: (1)
a 'commercial quantity' e.g. 100 kilograms of c a n n a b i s , 50 kilograms of cannabis resin, or 1.5 kilograms of heroin; (2) a 'traffickable
quantity' e.g. 100 grams of c a n n a b i s , 20 grams of cannabis resin, or 2
grams of heroin; and (3) all smaller amounts. The amounts are set out
in schedules to the Act and ma y be changed or added to by regulation.
A t present 'commercial quantities' have only been precribed for 9 major forms of commonly trafficked d r u g s . 'Traffickable quantities' have been p r e scribed for all drugs covered by the Act.
The p a r t icular scheme is as follows: if the offence related to a
commercial quantity of a drug the penalty is life imprisonment; if it
related to only a traffickable amount but it was a 'second o f f e n c e ', the
pe n a l t y is also life imprisonment. If it was a 'first o f f e n c e ' and the
drug was p resent only in a traffickable quantity then the penalty is 10
years imprisonment or $4000 fine or b o t h in the case of cannabis, or 25
years imprisonment or $100 000 fine or both in any other case. It is
open to the per s o n convicted for this offence to satisfy the court that
the drug was not held for sale or commercial dealing or that he had not
b e e n pre v i o u s l y convicted or found guilty within the meaning of the
section. This would reduce the applicable penalty to 2 years
imprisonment or $2000 fine or both. In all other cases the penalty is 2
years imprisonment or $2000 fine or both. All penalties mentioned are
the m aximum penalties possible.
A371
The Customs Amendment Act 1979, in addition to substantially
amending Section 235 of the Customs A c t , also made further important
changes. First, for the most serious offences no penalty by way of a
fine can be i m p o s e d ; second, a new 1 action for a pecuniary penalty'
under Section 243A discussed later in this Report was provided; and
third, on a 'second o f f e n c e 1 involving a traffickable amount of drugs it is no longer open to the convicted person to show that he had no
commercial intent and so attract a lower range of penalties.
Matters in Aid
Customs officers are given very wide powers to control shipping and aircraft entering and leaving Australia, to search them, their c argoes, and suspected passengers and crew, to patrol coastal areas, to question disembarking persons and examine their baggage, and to stop and search suspected vehicles for dutiable goods. The Act also provides for forms of general warrant enabling their holders to search any places for goods that are forfeited under the Act. They have correspondingly wide powers to seize goods they find and which they reasonably believe to be
forfeited. These matters are dealt with in detail later in this Report.
Forfeiture
All prohibited goods imported and exported and all other things
enumerated in Sections 229 and 229A are forfeited to the Crown.
Extensive provisions are made in the Act for the procedures for dealing w i t h forfeited goods. Forfeitures and confiscation are dealt with in
detail below.
Customs (Prohibited Import) Regulations
Drugs which are prohibited imports may none the less be imported
subject to two conditions: first, the importer must be licensed by the Director-General of Health for this p u r p o s e ; second, he must have a
permit for each importation, also issued by the Director-General of
Health. The licenses and permits seek to ensure that all such drugs are
used for medical and scientific purposes only, that adequate records of the amounts and disposal of the drugs are made and filed with the
d e p a r t m e n t , that adequate precautions are taken in moving the drugs and that the drugs are kept in safe custody (Regulation 5).
Similar requirements for both a licence and individual permits are made by the Customs (Prohibited Export) Regulations in relation to the
exportation of d r u g s .
THE NARCOTIC DRUGS ACT 1967
This Act, as amended by the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Act 1976,
empowers the Minister for Health to licence manufacturers of narcotic drugs to which the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 applies,
e . g . , opium and its derivates such as morphine and codeine. It also
empowers the Director-General of H ealth to issue manufacturing quotas and control manufacture in accordance with the requirements of the
Convention.
A372
A person (or corporation) licensed to manufacture drugs under this
Act is required to comply with the conditions of his licence relating to
the premises where manufacture may be conducted, the period for which
the licence has be e n granted, the maximum quantities he is permitted to
manufacture and the maximum quantity he is permitted to have in his
possession, and also to comply w i t h directions given to him relating to
security of the premises and handling of narcotic materials.
Narcotic preparations supplied by a manufacturer must be labelled in accordance wi t h any directions given to the manufacturer by the
D i r e ctor-General of Health. The manufacturer is prohibited from
destroying any drug he has manufactured except wi t h the consent, in
writing, of the D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l .
THE PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT 1976
This A c t , when proclaimed to be completely in f o r c e , will empower a
Collector of Customs to seize all consignments in transit through
Australia of substances covered by the Convention on Psychotropic
Substances unless an appropriate export authorisation under that
C o n vention is held (Section 9). Section 2 provides that Section 9 will
come into force on a date to be proclaimed, that day to be not earlier
than the date on which the Convention on Psychotropic Substances enters into force for Australia. Section 9 has not been proclaimed. As noted
earlier, ratification of the Convention has been d e l a y e d .
ACTS DEA L I N G WITH DR U G TRAFFICKING INCIDENTALLY
The Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 sets standards for goods used for
therapeutic purposes, including the administration of drugs. Goods not me e t i n g these requirements may not be imported or made the subject of
inter-state trade.
In addition, certain narcotic drugs are included on the list of
pharmaceutical benefits available under the National Health Act 1953. Th e y are subject to the controls imposed by that Act. However, the
amount of a drug available on a National Health Service prescription is
limited. Persons abusing such drugs often seek larger quantities than
p rovided for under the Act as a result of which they do not qualify for
the b enefit and are not subject to the associated recording procedures
and statistical controls.
A373
TABLES OF COMMONWEALTH DRUG-RELATED OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
1. The following tables set out the major offences and their penalties under Commonwealth legislation.
2. Penalties shown are the maximum provided for in the legislation. 3. Numbers following descriptions of offences are section numbers.
Commonwealth Drug-related Offences and Penalties Importing/Exporting, Possession: as at 30 June 1979
Offence: Importing/Exporting Offence: Possession
Customs Act 1901
(all prohibited imports/exports referred to bel o w are narcotic goods)
Being assembled for purpose of...
importing prohibited imports... preventing the seizure or rescuing after seizure of any prohibited imports. 231
Importation or exportation of goods (where narcotic goods are involved) contrary to the Act by
master of ship, pilot of an airÂ
craft. 233A
Importing, e t c . , prohibited
imports into Australia or exporting same from Australia.
233B (1) (b)
A i d i n g , abetting, counselling, procuring, being knowingly con cerned in the importation of prohibited imports or exporta tion of prohibited exports. 233B(l)(d)
Failing to disclose knowledge on demand to officer concerning importation/exportation.
233B(l)(e)
Customs Act 1901
(all prohibited imports/exports referred to below are narcotic goods)
Being in possession of prohibited imports on ship, aircraft without reasonable cause. 233B(1)(a)
Being in possession of prohibited imports that have been imported in contravention of Act, without reasonable excuse. 233B(l)(c)
Being in possession of prohibited imports reasonably suspected of having been illegally imported into Australia, without reasonable excuse. 233B(l)(ca)
Penalties * 1
$100 000 or 25 years or both if the offence relates to narcotic goods in
a 'traffickable quantity'.* $4000 or 10 years or both if the offence relates to cannabis in a
1traffickable q u a ntity'.* $2000 or 2 years or both in all other cases.
^Offences of dealing or trafficking in narcotic drugs are not specified in the legislation but persons in possession of 'traffickable quanti ties' of narcotic substances as defined by the Act are liable to higher
penalties.
A3 7 4
Commonwealth Drug-related Offences and Penalties Importing/Exporting Possession: as at December 1979
Offences: Importing/Exporting, Possession
The Customs Act 1901 was amended in September 1979 by the Customs Amend ment Act 1979. This amendment did not alter the offences of importing/
exporting and possession of narcotic goods as outlined in the preceding table. It did, h o w e v e r , substantially alter the penalties provided for those offences. These penalties are set out below.
Penalties
Imprisonment for life if the offence is committed in respect of:
(i) A 'commercial quantity' of narcotic goods; or
(ii) A 'traffickable quantity' and the defendant has b e e n previously convicted of an offence specified by the Act.
$100 000 or 25 years if the offence is committed in respect of a
traffickable quantity of narcotic goods and the defendant has not been previously convicted of an offence specified in the Act.
$4000 or 10 years or both if the offence is committed in respect of
cannabis in a 'traffickable q u a n t i t y '.
$2000 or 2 years or both in all other cases.
Comm onwealth Drug-related Offences and Penalties: Manufacturing
Offence: Manufacturing (relating to legal trade in drugs)
Narcotic Drugs Act 1967
Prohibition on manufacturing drugs without manufacturing licence. 15(1)
Obligation on licensed manufacturer to manufacture at specified pre mises, and in accordance with conditions of licence, and only during permitted period of time. 15(2)
Obligation on licensed manufacturer to comply w i t h permit requirements about m a x i m u m quantities of drugs in his possession or to be manufac tured by h i m in a given period. 16
Obligation on licensed manufacturer to label drugs or narcotic preparaÂ
tions in accordance w i t h Act. 18
Prohibition on destruction of drugs, narcotic preparations, by-products, by licensed manufacturer, unless in accordance w i t h consent and directÂ
ions of Director-General of Health. 19
Penalties for failure to comply with above provisions:
$4000 or 10 years or both (prosecution on indictment) $1000 or 2 years or both (summary prosecutions)
Obligation on m a n u f acturer (and wholesale dealer) to keep records and furnish returns to Director-General of Health. 23
Obstructing, failing to assist authorised inspector of manufacturer's
premises. 24(3) '
Penalty: $1000
A375
Commonwealth Drug-related Offences and Penalties: Importing/Trading
Offence: Importing/Trading (relating to legal trade in drugs)
Therapeutic Goods Act 1966
Obligation on importer, interstate trader, supplier to furnish informaÂ
tion with respect to the composition of therapeutic goods (includes
d r u g s ) . 9(2)
Prohibition on importing goods for therapeutic use that do not conform to certain standards and labelling and packaging requirements unless non-compliance is authorised by the Minister in writing. 19(1)
Prohibition on interstate trade in therapeutic goods unless goods conÂ
form to certain standards and labelling and packaging requirements or unless non-compliance is authorised by the Minister in writing. 20
Prohibition on supplying therapeutic goods as pharmaceutical benefits unless goods c o n form to certain standards and labelling and packaging
requirements or unless non-compliance is authorised by the Minister in writing. 21
Prohibition on supplying therapeutic goods to the Commonwealth or to an authority of the Commonwealth or of a Territory unless goods conform to certain standards and labelling and packaging requirements or unless non-compliance is authorised by the Minister in writing. 22
Prohibition on importing goods containing 'dangerous substances',
quarantine measures on such goods and orders forbidding the preparation of, and requiring the destruction of, such goods. 29
Penalty
$200 or six months (summarily)
$1000 or 1 year (on indictment)
A3 7 6
Chapter 4 State and Territory Legislation (Offences and Penalties)
The general criminal provisions relating to the illegal production,
trafficking in and possession of drugs are found in State and Territory
legislation. In Victoria, New South Wales, and Tasmania they are in the
Poisons Acts. These Acts deal comprehensively with all dangerous drugs, poisons, and deleterious substances. In Queensland they are found in
the Health Act, which deals not only with poisons but also with pure
food requirements and many other unrelated public health questions. In South Australia they are dealt with separately in the Narcotic and
Psychotropic Drugs Act (formerly the Dangerous Drugs Act). In Western
Australia they are contained in the Police Act. The A.C.T. and the
Northern Territory have special legislation separate from that
controlling other drugs and poisons. In this Chapter the relevant
legislation is identified and its general approach outlined. Aspects
of the legislation are looked at in more detail in later chapters.
Existing laws relating to offences and penalties are set out in chart
form at the end of this chapter.
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR DRUGS OF ADDICTION
Even in those States where the criminal provisions are contained in
poisons and public health legislation, special sections are devoted to drugs of addiction and dangerous drugs. Separate offences of producing, trafficking in, possessing and using such drugs are created and they
attract much heavier penalties than offences relating to other drugs and poisons. Special powers of search and arrest are also given to police
in respect of these offences. They are considered separately later in
this Repo r t .
CLASSIFICATION OF DRUGS
Because these offences are dealt with in connection with public
health provisions, the legislation often identifies the drugs by
reference to their public health classification. In general terms all
drugs and deleterious substances are listed by public health authorities in a poisons list divided into eight categories of substances, each
contained in a separate schedule. This general scheme is adopted in all
States. As the decision on the category (or schedule) in which a
particular drug will be put depends on each State authority, there are
some variations from State to State, which have important consequences. The appropriate classifications of the drugs pentazocine (Fortral) and methaqualone (Mandrax) are examples of such differences. These are
dealt with elsewhere in this Report.
Of the eight categories or schedules three are relevant to illegal
trafficking: Restricted Substances (Schedule 4), Special Poisons
(Schedule 7) and Drugs of Addiction (Schedule 8). Insertion of a drug
into a particular schedule has the same general consequences in all
States. Restricted Substances (Schedule 4) such as diazepam (Valium)
are available only from a medical practitioner or on prescription from a pharmacist. Such prescriptions are subject to special requirements as to recording and to limitations on the quantity that may be prescribed.
A377
Special Poisons (Schedule 7) such as LSD and the hallucinogenic
drugs (in Victoria only) are banned from use except for scientific
research. Drugs of Addiction (Schedule 8) such as dextromoramide
(Palfium) and the opiates are also available only from medical
practitioners or upon prescription and subject to stringent control as to storage, recording of use and limitations on q u a n t i t i e s . Special
provisions are made to seek to prevent the use of forged prescriptions.
In New South Wales, for example, a pharmacist dispensing a prescription for the commonly abused narcotic analgesics such as dextromoramide must verify it wi t h the physician in cases where the handwriting is
unfamiliar to the pharmacist and the person presenting the prescription is not known to him.
DRUGS COVERED BY THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS
The mode of identification of drugs covered by criminal provisions varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The earlier legislation
identified particular drugs by name. Problems arose when the statute
used a scientific or technical name, e . g . , cannabis sativa instead of
Indian h e m p , because such terms are limited to their precise meanings
and do not cover related, but distinct, substances which have similar
effects. The A.C.T. and Northern Territory overcame this problem by
appending lengthy schedules listing all the drugs and their derivatives to ordinances. Substances can be added or deleted by regulation. In
N e w South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania the drugs covered are defined
to be those contained in Schedule 8 (Drugs of Addiction) of the Poisons
L i s t . Dangerous although non-addictive drugs such as LSD may be
reclassified from Schedules 4 and 7 to Schedule 8 by proclamations or
regulations. In Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia the
principal drugs are named in the Act while other drugs of addiction are
included by use of a general definition or by reference to Schedule 8 of
the Poisons List. Non-addictive substances such as the hallucinogens are added by proclamations by the Governor-in-Council. Restricted
Substances (Schedule 4) are added by regulations and usually called 'specified substances' for the purpose of the criminal provisions. In nearly all States special offences are created for particular named
drugs especially opium, heroin and Indian hemp. The offences in each
jurisdiction are discussed in detail below.
The main provisions in each State and Territory are to be found in
the statutes listed below.
New South Wales
Poisons Act 1966, Part IV : Drugs of Addiction,Prohibited Drugs and
Prohibited Plants.
Victoria
Poisons Act 1962, Part II : Special Poisons, and Part III : Drugs of
Addiction.
Queensland
Health Act 1937, Part IV, Division IV : Dangerous D r u g s , Prohibited
Plants and Poisons.
A378
So u t h Australia
Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934.
We s t e r n Australia
Police Act 1892, Part V I A : Opium and Dangerous D r u g s .
Poisons Act 1964, Part IV: Drugs of Addiction.
Tasmania
Poisons Act 1971, Part V : Special Provisions relating to Narcotics,
Prohibited Plants and Prohibited S u b s t a n c e s .
No r t h e r n T e rritory
Dangerous Drugs Act 1978 (formerly Dangerous Drugs Ordinance 1978).
P r o hibited Drugs Act 1978 (formerly Prohibited Drugs Ordinance 1978).
Aus t r a l i a n Capital Territory
Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978, Part II : Addictive
S u b s t a n c e s .
T R A F FICKING
Al t h o u g h the mere possession and the use of illegal drugs are
offences in every State and Territory, all jurisdictions recognise that the supplying of, and trafficking in, such drugs are more serious
offences deserving more severe penalties. As has b e e n seen in the
Federal legislation, although the Customs Act does not make this
distinction when creating offences it does so for the sake of
determining p e n a l t i e s . In the illegal drug trade, as in all 'black
markets', the distinction b e t w e e n the 'consumer' and the 'retailer' is often not easy to determine in practice, and it can be arbitrary to a
degree. Proof of trafficking, or intention to do so, imposes additional and difficult evidentiary burdens on the prosecution. This has led all
jurisdictions to specify certain quantities for each illegal drug as a
'traffickable a m o u n t '. In most jurisdictions the commonsense inference that a larger amount of a drug is likely to be held for purposes of sale
is converted into a legal presumption that this is so. The person
charged mu s t then present evidence and argument to prove that it was
not. (Special note of these 'd e e m i n g ' provisions is taken in setting
out the trafficking o f f e n c e s .) In three States (Victoria, Queensland
and W estern Australia) the legislature has in recent years enacted
amendments to the relevant drug legislation making it an offence to be
in possession of money or other valuable sureties or documents in
connection with the commission of an offence against the legislation
(WA, Qld) or providing that such possession is deemed to constitute
trafficking for the purposes of the Act (Vic.). Working on the
p r e s u m p t i o n that persons who are in possession of such items in given
circumstances are likely to be traffickers or dealers, the penalties
imposed on such people by virtue of their p o s session of such documents
are the same as' those applying to trafficking or dealing. Such
legislation by-passes many of the difficulties faced by the prosecution
in p roving a case.
A37 9
AIDING, ABETTING, ETC., AND COMPANY OFFENCES
In many jurisdictions an offence is constituted by attempting to
commit an o f f e n c e , by aiding and abetting another to commit an offence, or by soliciting another to commit an offence, and these have not been
specifically noted for every State. Another common provision that
should be noted generally is one determining how liability will fall in
the case where a company commits an o f fence. Generally speaking,
directors and managers of corporate bodies are liable for acts
constituting offences unless they can prove they had no knowledge of, or did not consent to, the prohibited activities.
NEW SOUTH WALES
The major drug offences in this State are set out in the Poisons Act
1966 Part IV, headed 'Drugs of Addiction, Prohibited Drugs and
Prohibited Plants'. There are many separate offences specified in Part IV. The 'traffi c k i n g ' offences are set out first.
For the purpose of creating offences, the Act considers the drugs
covered by Part IV in four g r o u p s :
- prepared opium and Indian h e m p ;
- other drugs of addiction;
- prohibited drugs (i.e ., heroin and its derivatives); and
- prohibited plants.
While the types of offences relating to each are similar they are
not identical.
The 'trafficking offences'
It is an offence:
* To manufacture, supply, sell or otherwise deal in prepared opium or
Indian hemp (Section 21(l)(a));
* to m a n u f acture, prepare, sell, distribute, supply or otherwise deal in any prohibited drug (Section 32(1)(a));
* to sell or supply any drug of addiction other than prepared opium or
Indian hemp (unless licensed or otherwise lawfully excused)
(Section 2 1 (2A));
* to cultivate any prohibited plant (Section 33A(1)(a));
* being the occupier, owner or lessee of any premises, to permit those
premises to be used for the purpose of cultivation, sale, or supply
of or dealing in any prohibited plant (Section 33A(l)(d)); or
A380
" to be concerned in the m a n agement of any such premises referred to
in (d) (Section 33A(l)(e)).
Offences other than 'trafficking'
* Being the occ u p i e r of premises, to permit those premises to be used
for the purpose of pre p a r a t i o n of opium or Indian hemp for smoking
or the sale, supply, distribution or smoking of prepared opium or
Indian hemp (Section 21(l)(c));
* being the owner or lessee of any premises, to knowingly permit such
premises to be used for the purpose of smoking opium, prepared opium
or Indian hemp (Section 21(l)(d)); or
* to be concerned in the management of any premises used for any
purpose referred to in (c) and (d) (Section 21(l)(e));
* to have in p o s session any prepared opium or Indian hemp (Section
21(1)(b));
* to have in p o s session any prohibited drug (Section 3 2 ( 1 ) (b));
* to have in possession without authority any drug of addiction (other
than prepared opium or Indian hemp) (Section 21(2));
* to have in possession any prohibited plant (Section 33A(l)(c));
* to have in possession any pipes or other utensils for use in
connection with the smoking of opium, prepared opium or Indian hemp
or any utensils used in connection with the preparation of opium or
Indian hemp for smoking (Section 21( 1 ) (f));
* to smoke opium, prepared opium or Indian hemp or otherwise use
prepared opium or Indian hemp or to frequent any place used for the
purpose of smoking opium, prepared opium or Indian hemp (Section
2 1( 1 ) ( g ) ) ;
* to use any prohibited drug (Section 3 2 ( 1 ) (c));
* to attempt to commit any of the above offences or to solicit or
incite another to commit such an offence (Sections 26(4), 33(2) and
3 3 C ( 2 ) ) .
Penalties for the above offences
All of the above offences may be tried summarily (Section 45).
Where they are so tried the maximum p enalty in all cases is a fine of
$2000 or imprisonment for 2 years or both (Sections 26(1), 33(1) and
3 3 C ( 1 ) ) . Such imprisonment is additionally stated to be with or without hard labour in all cases except offences relating to prohibited plants
(Section 33C(1)). Section 45A(1) provides that the three offences of
'supplying or selling' set out at the beginning of the above list and
all the offences relating to prohibited plants may be prosecuted on
indictment. Sub-section (3) provides that any person convicted on
indictment of such charges shall be liable:
A381
except as provided in the next sub-paragraph, to a fine not
exceeding $50 000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15
years, or to both such fine and imprisonment; or
where the offence relates only to Indian hemp in leaf form, to a
fine not exceeding $25 000 or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years, or to bo t h such fine and imprisonment.
The reference to Indian hemp in leaf form is a reference to:
- Indian hemp which does not contain more than 3 pe r cent by weight,
determined in the prescribed manner, of t etrahydrocannabinol; or
- a prohibited plant of the genus Cannabis (Section 45A ( 3 A ) ).
In the case of those offences that may be tried on indictment under
Section 45A, p o s s ession of a certain amount (prescribed by regulation) of such substances is deemed to be possession for the purposes of supply
and sale unless the defendant proves the contrary. Another exception is also made for the defendant to prove that the drugs were lawfully
obtained by prescription (Section 4 5 A ( 4 ) ).
Licensed pos s e s s i o n
Part IV of the Act also provides that possession of drugs of
addiction m a y be specially a u t h o r i s e d . Regulations for the issue of
licenses and other controls are made under Section 24. Breach of these
provisions is an offence (Section 25). Section 26 renders persons
guilty of such an offence liable to a maximum penalty of a fine of $2000
or imprisonment (with or without hard labour) for 2 years or both.
VICTORIA
In Victoria the main legislation creating offences concerning the misuse of drugs is the Poisons Act 1962.
Part III of the Act is headed 'Drugs of Addiction', and the
substances in relation to which offences are created under this section of the Act include raw opium, prepared opium and medicinal opium, coca
leaves, crude cocaine, ecgonine, Indian hemp, drugs of addiction and
specified drugs so defined, but not lawfully prescribed medicines
containing such drugs of addiction or specified drugs. Specified drugs a r e , by legislative provision, restricted substances or drugs within
Schedule 4 declared to be productive of effects of similar character if
improperly used to those of drugs of addiction, and drugs of addiction
are defined as those substances specified in, or added by proclamation
to, Schedule 8 to the Act.
The 'trafficking' offences
* Section 30(1) of the Poisons Act 1962 makes it an offence to
manufacture or prepare or to take part in the manufacture or
A382
pre p a r a t i o n of heroin. Exemptions are created in favour of certain
educational and research e s t a b l i s h m e n t s . The penalty for a br e a c h
of this section as provided by Section 34(2) is imprisonment for not
more than 12 months or a fine of not more than $500 or both.
* Section 32(1) makes it an offence to p r e p a r e , manufacture, sell or
deal or traffic in the fresh or dried parts of any plant of the
genus Cannabis L. (by whatever name '"hose parts are called) in any
form without being authorised by or licensed under the Act. Such an
offence is a misdemeanour and liable to a maximum penalty of
imprisonment for a term of 10 years or to a fine of $4000 or to
both.
* Section 32(2) makes it an offence to p r e p a r e , m a n u f a c t u r e , sell or
deal or traffic in:
(a) any resinous or other extract obtained from any plant of the
genus Cannabis L. or from any part of that plant (by whatever
name those extracts are called), in any form; or
(b) opium or any other drug of addiction or specified drug in any
form, without being authorised by or licensed under the Act.
This offence is also a misdemeanour and liable to a maximum penalty of
imprisonment for a term of 15 years or to a p enalty of $100 000 or
both. The distinction between Cannabis extract in this offence and
Cannabis under Section 32(1) depends upon its strength as revealed by
analysis of the active i n g r e d i e n t . Strengths in excess of 3 per cent of
tetrahydrocannabinol attract the more serious penalties (Section 32(3)).
Under Section 32(4) a person is deemed to be trafficking if 'proved
to have in his possession or to have received any money or other
v a luable thing for or in connection with the preparation, manufacture, sale, dealing or trafficking in any drug of addiction or specified drug
in contravention of this s e c t i o n . ..unless the court is satisfied to the
c o n t r a r y ' .
Section 32(5) provides that when a person has in his possession more
than a certain q u antity of a drug the possession of that amount shall be
prima facie evidence that the person had that drug in possession for the
purpose of trafficking. It is provided in Sub-section 6 that the amount
constituting the specified quantity may be varied by the Governor-inÂ
Council b y p r o c l amation published in the Government Gazette.
Offences other than 'trafficking'
* Section 27(3) makes it an offence to administer, sell, prescribe or
dispense any drug of addiction or specified drug merely for the
purpose of addiction.
* Section 31(1) makes it an offence to smoke opium, Indian hemp or any
other drug of addiction or any specified drug. In Section 31(2)
there is a definition of the word 1 s m o k e â . It is stated that this
1 includes inhaling the fumes caused by heating or burning any
A383
substance and "smoking" and other derivatives of "smoke" shall have corresponding inte r p r e t a t i o n s ' .
Section 27(1) makes it an offence for an unauthorised person to have
in his possession or at his disposition any raw opium, prepared
opium, medicinal opium, coca leaves, crude cocaine, e c g o n i n e , Indian hemp, drugs of addiction or specified d r u g s . Possession is defined
as f o l l o w s : 'without restricting the m eaning of the word
" p o s s e s s i o n " , a substance shall be deemed for the purposes of this
part to be in possession of any person so long as it is upon any
land or premises occupied by him or is used, enjoyed or controlled
by him in any place w h atever unless it be shown that he had no
knowledge t h e r e o f ' (Section 28).
Part II of the Poisons Act 1962 (Victoria), which is headed 'Special
Poisons', relates to hallucinogenic d r u g s .
* Section 2 5 A ( 1) makes it an offence to p r e p a r e , m a n u f a c t u r e , deal or
traffic in hallucinogenic drugs for which the maximum penalty is
$4000 or 10 years imprisonment or both.
A person is deemed to be trafficking if he 'is proved to have in his
possession or to have received any mo n e y or other valuable thing for or
in connection with the preparation, m a n u f a c t u r e , sale, dealing or
trafficking in (such drugs) in contravention of this s e c t i o n . . .unless
the court is satisfied to the contrary' (Section 2 5 A ( 1 A ) ).
Section 25A(3) makes it an offence to be in possession of
hallucinogenic drugs without authority, for which the maximum
penalty is $500 or 12 months imprisonment or both.
Licensed possession
Part III of the Poisons Act 1962 (Victoria) also provides that
possession of drugs of addiction and specified drugs may be authorised. Regulations for the issue of licences and other controls are made under
Section 37. Sub-section (f) allows a maximum pen a l t y of $200 for any
contravention of or failure to comply with such regulations.
QUEENSLAND
The Act dealing with major drug offences under Queensland law is the
He a l t h Act 1937. The regulations to this Act, which are of some
relevance and which will be discussed later, are the Poisons Regulations 1973. The Act covers 'Dangerous D r u g s , Prohibited Plants and Poisons'
in Part IV, Division IV.
In Division IV, Section 130 is the significant section creating
o f f e n c e s . It has been amended frequently, particularly in the last
seven or eight years.
A384
The 'trafficking' offences
Section 130(2) is aimed mainly at persons who deal in, supply, and
traffic in drugs. The following activities are offences unless
performed in accordance with a lawful authority or licence:
(a) producing, preparing, manufacturing a dangerous drug or attempting to do so;
(b) cultivating a prohibited plant or attempting to do so;
(c) selling, giving, supplying or procuring a dangerous drug or
prohibited plant, or attempting so to do, or offering to sell, give,
supply or procure, to or for another person a dangerous drug or
prohibited plant, or otherwise dealing or trading in a dangerous
drug or prohibited plant or attempting so to do;
(d) being in possession of a dangerous drug or prohibited plant for a
purpose specified in (c) above;
(e) permitting or suffering premises of which the person is owner,
occupier, or involved in management, to be used for the production,
preparation, manufacture, sale, supply, distribution, smoking,
administration or consumption of a dangerous drug or for the
cultivation of a prohibited plant.
Section 130(2A), which was introduced in 1976, makes it an offence
for a person to be in possession of or have at his order or disposition:
(a) any money, marketable security or other thing; or
(b) any acknowledgement, note, or other thing, purporting or intended to entitle the bearer or any other person to money or money's worth
in any case had by him, whether directly, or indirectly, by way of, or
for the purpose of, the commission of an offence against Section 130(2)
(see above) or as consideration for the commission of such an offence.
The maximum penalty for the above offences is, upon conviction on
indictment, imprisonment with hard labour for life or a fine of $100 000
or both; upon conviction in summary proceedings the maximum penalty is
imprisonment with hard labour for 2 years or a fine of $2000 or both.
In proceedings brought for an offence in relation to possession of a dangerous drug a person who unlawfully has in his possession a quantity
of that drug in excess of a quantity prescribed under the Act or a
quantity of any substance containing that drug which quantity exceeds
the quantity prescribed under the Act, is deemed to have possession of
that drug for the purpose of selling, giving, supplying... dealing or
trading in a dangerous drug or a prohibited plant and is guilty of an
offence under Section 130(2)(c), unless he shows to the contrary
(Section 130J(1)).
A385
* Section 13 0 ( 3 ) (a) provides that a person shall not administer or
attempt or offer to administer a dangerous drug to another person
s a v e :
(i) where he does so under and in accordance with the authority of
a licence or other authorisation provided by or under this Act; or
(ii) where, he or such other person being lawfully in possession of
a dangerous drug, he administers or attempts or offers to
administer it to carry out the direction of a medical
practitioner who prescribed the drug for the bona fide
treatment of such other person.
* Section 13 0 ( 3 ) (b) provides that a person shall not 'have in his
possession' a dangerous drug for a purpose specified in Section
130(3)(a) that is u n l a w f u l .
* The max i m u m penalties provided for these offences a r e , if the
conviction is upon indictment, imprisonment with hard labour for 10 years or a fine of $10 000 or both; or if the conviction is in
summary proceedings imprisonment with hard labour for 2 years or a
fine of $2000 or both.
* Section 130(1) is aimed primarily at persons who are in possession
of dangerous drugs or prohibited plants. It is an offence for a
person to:
(i) be in possession of a dangerous drug or prohibited plant or to
procure for himself a dangerous drug or prohibited plant or
attempt to do so (save where there is authority to do so);
(ii) be in possession of a pipe, n e e d l e , syringe or other utensil in
connection with the preparation, smoking, administration or consumption of a dangerous drug (except where there is
authority or licence under the Act and possession is for the
purpose of lawful administration on the directions of a medical practitioner or a veterinary surgeon).
* The max i m u m penalty attaching to these offences is 2 years
imprisonment with hard labour or a fine of $2000 or both. It is
provided that mere possession of those named utensils shall not of
itself give rise to a presumption that the utensils are in
possession for use in connection with an offence under Section
130(1).
Licensed possession
The authorised use of dangerous drugs is provided for in the Poisons Regulations made under the Health Act 1937. Unless a person is
authorised by, or under, those regulations it is an offence for him to:
- have in his possession or on any premises or in any place,
- supply or procure or offer to supply or procure to or for any
p e r s o n s ,
Offences other than 1 trafficking'
A386
- prescribe in a prescription,
- dispense, or
- sell
a dangerous drug (D1.01). The m aximum p enalty for these offences is a
fine of $500 for a first offence and $1000 for subsequent offences
( Q 2 . 0 1 ) .
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
In South Australia the main Act that deals with drug offences is the
Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934, formerly called the Dangerous Drugs Act 1934.
The drugs to wh i c h the Act applies are set out in Section 4 of the
A c t . Such drugs include opium, Indian hemp, m o r p h i n e , heroin and allied substances, and cocaine. It is provided by Section 4(3) that if the
Governor is of the opinion that it is desirable to bring within the
provisions of the Act:
(a) any derivative of morphine or cocaine or of any salts of morphine or
c o c a i n e ,
(b) any other alkaloid of opium,
(c) any psychotropic drug or substance,
(d) any other drug or substance of whatever kind,
he may declare by proclamation that that substance shall be a drug to
w h i c h the Act a p p l i e s , and this has been done.
The 'trafficking' offences
* Section 5(2) makes it an indictable offence to:
(a) p r o d u c e , prepare or manufacture a drug to which the Act
a p p l i e s ;
(b) knowingly cultivate a prohibited plant (as defined by Section
3);
(c) sell, give, supply or administer, or offer to s e l l , g i v e ,
supply or administer any drug to which this Act applies to any
other per s o n or otherwise deal or trade in any such drug;
(d) be in possession of any drug to which the Act applies for any
of the purposes described in (c) a b o v e ;
(e) be the owner, lessee, or occupier or be concerned in the
management of any premises and permit those premises to be used for t h e ' production, preparation, manufacture, s a l e ,
distribution, smoking, consumption, or administration of any
A387
drug to which the Act a p p l i e s , or for the cultivation