Law enforcement has not failed, it's just not 100 per cent of the answer. We need a pluralistic approach. Specific measures such as quarantining welfare payments and treatment programs can assist families to survive while battling addiction. More broadly economic growth is vital in addressing illicit drugs and many other social problems. Employment provides personal meaning and financial means to reduce the likelihood of social problems.

Support for decriminalisation of illicit drugs relies on questionable assertions, including that law enforcement is ineffective, that drug harm is predominantly caused by criminal law and that decriminalisation would solve existing illicit drug problems without creating worse unintended consequences.

I would also caution on use of case studies from other nations as proof for the decriminalisation case. Given the significant economic, legal and cultural differences between Australia and nations with divergent drug policies, decriminalisation examples are often poor templates for a complex issue. Indigenous Bolivians chewing coca leaf are of little policy relevance to an Australian teenager injecting heroin.

I caution against automatically characterising participants in this debate as more informed, reasoned, caring or noble simply because of the position they take.

Many arguments in the Australia21 report unfortunately infer that supporters of decriminalisation are experienced, scientific and caring and that opponents supposedly mobilise fear, are callous to the human cost and beholden to the "drug law enforcement" industry.

Law enforcement does achieve significant results and is not yet at its peak of effectiveness. Enforcement can and does reduce supply. Reduction in supply not only reduces the availability but can also increase price, resulting in reduced consumption.

Just as economic challenges require constant reform, law enforcement always has a new horizon. For example, proceeds of crime action. Seizing the assets of drug traffickers can still achieve more in making the drug trade uneconomic for organised crime. In addition to direct impact on supply, enforcement sends a clear message to our youth about the community's view of illicit drugs as dangerous and illegal.

Drug harm is not caused by criminal law. Criminal sanctions facilitate treatment of users and protects the wider community from harm. Many states have cautioning programs that divert low-level drug offences from courts and compel individuals to attend counselling. The removal of the threat of criminal sanctions would make it near impossible to compel attendance for such purposes. With more serious or recidivist offenders, if the ability of the justice system to impose custodial sentences is removed there is little ability to force individuals to take responsibility. The impact of drug use then continues. The reality is that courts sentence drug users compassionately when they eventually appear.

Illicit drugs are illegal because of their harmful chemical composition, not harmful because they are illegal. Drug induced or exacerbated mental problems destroy lives and impact our health system. Individuals under the influence of drugs will continue to commit crimes regardless of the source or regulation of the substance.

At a time when the government is increasing the regulation against tobacco and alcohol it is difficult to understand support for a soft approach on illicit drugs. Decriminalisation would inevitably create unintended consequences and a minefield of new policy pitfalls. Complex problems frequently need a pluralistic approach. Pessimism and frustration should not be catalyst for dangerous social experiments such as decriminalisation. Incremental improvement on many fronts such as enforcement, economic growth and treatment will be far more likely to lead to progress.