Over the last year people have been advocating for the two Australian drug smugglers with claims that the sentence is medieval and cruel. Debates on the war on drugs have sprung to life, questioning whether or not to legalise drugs in order to better help people with addiction.   

Data provided to Penington Institute by Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2014 states that nearly four Australians die every day from overdose. Overdoses out-numbered road fatalities in Australia in 2012. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics overdose deaths totalled 1,427 in 2012, while road deaths, which have been steadily declining, ended the year at 1,338.

Whilst the two Australian men in Indonesia await their execution the rise of crystal methamphetamine, commonly known as ice, is devastating regional Victoria. Regional towns such as Mildura are finding themselves in an epidemic, these drugs destroying families and communities alike. Ice is highly addictive, it's relatively cheap and a lot of it is produced right here in Australia.

People who are addicted to the drug say that it only takes one hit before they become addicted, claiming the allure of the high keeps drawing them back.

I personally see an issue with categorising the two insinc. The first being the Bali Nine and the other being the addicted. One of the major issues in the debate on the war against drugs, is that sufferers of addiction should be diagnosed with mental illness. That by legalising drugs they are able to control supply and openly help these people. 

Similarly others have questioned that by legalising these substances our legal system should also legalise prostitution, rape, murder, etc. Laws are set to punish wrongdoing regardless if they work or not.

Perhaps it is time to reform openness in the drugs debate.

While the social problems created by drugs are undisputed, and some carry significant health risks, the war on drugs has achieved little despite decades of effort. 

Internationally or domestically the drug trade, whether soft or hard, is given over to the vagaries of the black market and criminal gangs. 

In the USA there are now 23 states where cannabis is wholly illegal, while four have fully legalised it for medical and recreational use. These issues are quite difficult to discuss as both politicians and communities that speak about their own experiences with drugs are taboo. Who wants to be associated with such stigmas?

The question is; does this prohibition on drugs force supply into the hands of non tax-paying hands? If it’s going to happen, why not try to control it? Is prohibition a brute mentality causing death and destruction? Is there need for a change in consciousness?

There is still an element of implausibility about former US president Bill Clinton's claim that he tried cannabis but didn't inhale. 

The term ‘war’ suggests that a ‘peace’ is achievable, and I ardently believe that it can be obtained, but realistically, perhaps it's more about damage control with as little casualties as possible. 

I don’t know whether we have lost the war on drugs, or whether legalising would in fact give way to better accessibility or a sense of ‘acceptance’ on drug use. However, I do feel that by opening up these discussions, perhaps we will at least have a chance to help those with addiction.