BEAZLEY'S DRUG PLAN GOES FOR SOFT OPTIONS

For those who are anxious for decisive action on the nation's drug problem
there were too few encouraging signs in the strategy outlined by federal
Labor leader Kim Beazley last Thursday. Personally, Mr Beazley is in favor
of supervised injecting rooms, and Labor policy commits him to consider
prescription trials.

In principle, at least, this sets him apart from Prime Minister John Howard
and most of his cabinet colleagues, who seem wedded to the time-worn - and
failing - zero-tolerance and just-say-no nostrums.

But, in practice, the Labor plan might not be all that different from the
policies the Howard Government already has in place.

The ALP policy proposing heroin trials would appear to be a paper tiger; Mr
Beazley said he was virtually certain that no state government would
introduce such a trial. On injecting rooms, the Labor leader offered a
similar refrain, arguing that drug rehabilitation professionals were
telling him that this was not a priority. Instead, Mr Beazley wanted to
focus more on coming down hard on drug traffickers and the exploration of
therapeutic treatments for addicts, such as naltrexone and buprenorphine.

Talking tough about drug lords is all very well. Few in the community would
argue with Mr Beazley's wish to hound dealers into poverty.

But it is still mostly talk. The drug problem is not just about supply, it
also about abuse. There are many reasons for so many young people to fall
victim to heroin. Cracking down on the suppliers of the drug will deal with
part of the problem but will not address the fundamental social and
psychological causes of the heroin epidemic.

Mr Beazley's approach to the drug problem purports to deal in manageable
solutions and to acknowledge the political and policy realities.

This is all very well but sometimes leadership requires more than a
strategy of whatever fits best. If Mr Beazley cannot aim high enough even
to commit himself to at least trying to implement policies that he supports
personally, this raises questions about his capacity to deliver effective
outcomes if he does find himself in power after this year's election.

Inevitably, the conflicting demands of government and the need to negotiate
positions on a subject as sensitive as this will almost certainly
necessitate compromise. Surely under these circumstances it would be better
for Mr Beazley to contemplate and accommodate the compromises from power
rather than from opposition. The nation's drug problem is running out of
control. It is harming young lives, families and sometimes whole
communities. Radical proposals and political courage will be needed if the
society is to turn back the drug menace.

Mr Beazley has some of the ideas but he could have, and should have,
produced more.