High Court abandon Rule of Law over the administration of the Misuse of Drugs Act Something is wrong at the heart of the operation of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDAct): certain drug users are denied basic rights to their preferred drugs, whether there is identifiable negative social outcome from their activities or not, and other persons concerned with the drugs alcohol and tobacco are excluded from the Act's protection even when social harm is evident in their actions. Parliament enacted the Misuse of Drugs Act to give powers to government to administer it according to purpose. An examination of the Act reveals: 1. The Act regulates people with respect to drugs, not drugs with respect to people. 2. The Act does not mandate "prohibition". 3. The Act is designed to prevent, minimise and/or eliminate the misuse of drugs having "harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem" through proportionate measures. 3. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that can be and are being misused; their misuse is having harmful effects; these harmful effects are sufficient to constitute a social problem; so, why are those who produce, commerce and use alcohol and tobacco not regulated by the Act? Said another way, why are persons concerned with alcohol and tobacco given preferential treatment?