TIME FOR HONEST RESPONSES ON HEROIN

THE decision by the Bracks Government to delay parliamentary debate on
legislation enabling the establishment of heroin injecting rooms is a mixed
bag. In response to a request by its chief drug adviser, David Penington,
the government will delay the debate until October. By then, a second report
on anti-drug measures from a committee headed by Dr Penington will have been
released. It follows that with this issue, more than most others, the more
information that is made available the better.

But the delay also serves another purpose.

The Liberal Party, which must lend its support to the legislation in both
houses of parliament if the injecting rooms trial is to happen, will have
more time to contemplate its stance.

At this point it would seem that the odds do not favor the Liberals getting
behind the initiative. Many Liberals MPs, conservative by nature, will never
endorse the effective - albeit strictly limited - legalisation of heroin.
Chief among these would appear to be the Liberal leader, Denis Napthine, who
has reacted coolly to the proposals from the outset.

Even so, opinion is divided within the party and Dr Napthine has wisely
deferred a final decision until more detail is available.

But at this point of the debate, it is useful for the Liberals to confront
some home truths.

The explosion in heroin use took place during their time in office.

This is not to say that the Kennett government was responsible for the
heroin scourge, but the plain truth is that it happened during the Liberals'
watch.

The ultimate responsibility for trying to roll back the state's drug horror
now falls to the Bracks Government, which took office in October last year.
However, the issue of heroin use transcends politics.

The Liberals have a moral responsibility not to play populist politics but
to contribute to a solution.

The Age believes that solution should include an injecting rooms trial.

While the reluctance of many Liberals to support injecting rooms is
understandable, that should not be seen as an open ticket to do little more
than provide a running critique on the efforts of those who are genuinely
trying to come up with practical policies to combat heroin.

Nor should it mean that the Liberals see their chief role as continually
raising the stakes in negotiations with the government in order to make an
agreement eventually impossible. The heroin problem places very onerous
responsibilities on society's political representatives, and ground-breaking
measures such as injecting rooms deserve cautious consideration. But as the
process drags on, lives are being ruined and people are dying.

Workable proposals must result from the current debate.

History will not be kind to those who could have done something but instead
took the easy way out and did nothing.