OPEN MINDS NEEDED ON DRUGS

PRIME Minister John Howard's reflex rejection of the latest call for a
heroin trial underscores potential problems for the WA Community Drug
Summit - closed minds and set agendas.

The issue here is not whether heroin trials should be held, but whether
people are willing to be receptive to a range of ideas and prepared to
consider them with open minds. Mr Howard has made it clear that he is not.
It is to be hoped that the people at the summit will avoid following his
example.

Mr Howard is well known for his social conservatism, which arguably is
attuned to the values espoused by a big section of middle Australia.
However, in this instance, he should have paid more regard to the source of
the call - the nation's top organised crime fighter, the National Crime
Authority.

This is no insipid so-called social engineer or advocate of soft options,
but a hard-nosed agency bent on defeating crime. And it has made a
realistic assessment that the police alone are powerless to stop the
illegal drug trade, given Australia's vast coastline, the free flow of
trade and visitors and the advanced technology available to criminals.

NCA chairman Gary Crooke QC says the immense profits and the inability of
the police to stem smuggling into Australia meant novel solutions were
needed. He suggested that one measure would be to give addicts illicit
drugs from a government repository under strict medical supervision.

The logic behind this proposal is clear. If addicts were provided with
drugs by a legal source, they would not have to rely on illegal traders for
their supplies. The market for illegally traded drugs - or at least a
significant part of it - would be removed. The illegal trade would be
diminished.

At the same time, addicts would come under the supervision of doctors, who
could encourage them to get treatment to break the habit. In any case,
addicts taking drugs under professional supervision would be safer than
they are taking substances of unknown quality on the streets.

Of course, valid objections to this proposal can be raised. One is that
drug pushers facing a diminishing market could be expected to become
desperate and redouble their efforts to recruit more people into the misery
of addiction, particularly the vulnerable young. Another is that an
official dispensary of addictive drugs would simply increase their
availability and give drug abusers a choice of sources of supply.

Another objection is that government-authorised supply of, say, heroin to
addicts may be seen to imply official approval of its use as a recreational
drug. It could be argued that this would lend an appearance of legitimacy
to drug abuse.

Mr Howard, of course, could be expected to be anxious to avoid any
perception that his Government in any way condoned heroin use. However, his
peremptory dismissal of Mr Crooke's view also suggests that he is not
sufficiently moved by the devastation caused by drug abuse to consider
potential remedies that he might judge to be politically risky.

Mr Crooke's call reflects a realisation (shared by many people) that
current policies and practices are not working.

New proposals must be evaluated without bias or self-interest. Participants
in the summit - whatever their preconceived ideas - would make a worthwhile
contribution if they accepted this.