POLITICS STILL MIRES THE DRUGS DEBATE

Only days after Victoria's retiring police chief, Neil Comrie, challenged
politicians to take politics out of the drugs debate, they injected a fresh
dose by squabbling over the relative potency of their favored fix. The
Bracks Government foreshadowed legislation to threaten major drug
traffickers with a maximum of life imprisonment. The Opposition tried to
trump this by demanding that high minimum sentences be virtually mandatory.
Calling for harsher penalties against crimes that the general community
abhors is a common political reflex action.

It is easy, cheap and satisfies the popular lust for righteous retribution.
As a remedy it has one fatal flaw. It hasn't worked in the past and it
isn't likely to work in future.

True, Mr Comrie's thoughtful initiative deserves to be heeded, the
government is aware of the complexity of the drugs problem, and the
criminal justice system does have an important role to play. But Mr Comrie
is one of a growing number of senior police here and abroad who acknowledge
that law enforcement to cut the supply of illicit drugs has its limitations
and that broader preventive measures to diminish the demand are required.

The thrust of his 10-year plan is aimed at saving the next generation of
potential drug abusers. He wants both sides of politics to examine and
agree to better education, early intervention and diversion programs, which
would depend on adequate funding and bipartisan endorsement. Prevention is
better than cure, and difficult though it is to devise effective safeguards
against the lure of harmful drugs, such an approach deserves greater
emphasis and should win widespread support.

Unfortunately, political divisions have already undermined other fronts of
the war against drugs, and not just in the latest clash over appropriate
penalties for drug traffickers. The concept of harm minimisation is still
too thorny for politicians to handle when it comes to safe injecting rooms
or free heroin trials.

The Opposition (and Federal Government) have firmly ruled out such
experiments; the Labor Government is hesitant to try them, even though such
programs might save lives, make addicts less dependent on illicit suppliers
and reduce the need to pay for their habit by resorting to theft,
prostitution or recruiting others.

The government's review of drug laws has merit in redefining commercial
quantities of illicit drugs and making it easier to confiscate criminal assets.

The Opposition has a point in noting that the courts rarely impose the
maximum penalties already available. But mandatory sentences are
objectionable in principle and oppressive in practice.

Deterrence depends not on draconian penalties but on the certainty of
detection, conviction and punishment. It is too easy for the Mr Bigs of the
drug trade to buy protection and evade capture.

There is no simple solution, and political point scoring won't help.