INJECTING ROOMS DESERVE A CHANCE

On the controversial subject of supervised injecting rooms, the
Liberal Party is right to consult widely before reaching a decision to
support a trial. Nevertheless, the facts are becoming plain for all to
see.

The drug problem is getting worse, not better. Heroin deaths now
exceed the road toll. Seventy per cent of those in prison are there
for drug-related offences. Drug-related robberies and other crimes are
growing. The impact on families and neighborhoods is serious.

The best efforts of state and federal police can only intercept about
10 per cent of the drug traffic. Drug-pushing is immensely lucrative.

The American Prohibition experience clearly demonstrated that simply
declaring a product or practice illegal, and enforcing criminal
penalties, is not enough. On the contrary, it encouraged the growth of
a new criminal group, with speakeasies, sly-grog parlors and the whole
apparatus for supplying the banned product, namely alcohol, to the
market.

The community demands strong action to deal with this growing menace,
but it is clear the attack must be conducted on several fronts, and
that enforcement needs powerful supporting measures to tackle not just
the supply side, but the whole area of the demand, the reasons for it,
and the handling of addiction.

But there is real cause for optimism in the experience of two
countries that have led the world in drug policy during the 1990s,
Switzerland and Germany, that a four-pronged attack - prevention,
treatment, harm reduction and law enforcement - does have positive
results. The recent report of the Swiss Federal Office of Public
Health on Swiss drug policy showed that since 1991:

- - HIV and hepatitis have greatly decreased;

- - deaths from drug overdose have been greatly reduced;

- - drug-related crime has been substantially reduced;

- - the open drug scenes have been eliminated; and

- - the number of drug addicts in treatment has more than
doubled.

Thousands of drug addicts have been given the chance to recover and
repair their lives.

The point is that injecting centres have been a vital element in this
broad-based attack, which is now supported by a strong consensus in
both countries. It is a pity the Prime Minister should have as his
adviser on drugs Brian Watters (whose views, incidentally, are not
shared by many of his colleagues in the Salvation Army). He seems to
have the narrow view on this, as on other constructive proposals, that
it "would send the wrong message".

On the contrary, the message would be one of compassion for the drug
addicts and their families, and of positive action, to deal with a
damaging and costly blight on our community.

Finally, it is impressive to note the widespread support for this
proposal, notably from those closest to the scene - the Australian
Medical Association, ambulance employees, the Australian Drug
Foundation - but also from broadly representatives bodies - the Bar
Council, Law Institute, Institution of Engineers, Ethnic Communities
Council, Chartered Practising Accountants and, most important,
parliament's own Drug Advisory Committee under Dr David Penington,
appointed by the previous Coalition government.

Of course, the location of these centres is, and will be, the most
contentious issue, and the Liberal Party would justly require close
consultation with the people and areas most likely to be affected. It
would also fairly insist that a range of facilities for treatment be
offered as an integral part of the scheme. Finally, it could attach a
"sunset clause", conditional on a strict and clear assessment of the
effects of the scheme after a reasonable period.

What would be unacceptable would be to deny support for at least a
trial of this positive action, which could form a crucial part of a
real effort to save lives and tackle a costly community menace.