HARM MINIMISATION NOT ANSWER

I WOULD like to raise a point made by Dr Aitken in his reply (June 22)
that I believe needs airing in the media.

He stated that needle and syringe programs "increase the number of
injecting drug users referred to and retained in drug treatment".

Does this mean that the policy of harm minimisation, which needle
exchange programs are a part of, is judged successful if the addicts
are retained in a drug-using lifestyle?

Is it judged successful if addicts commit less crime, spend less time
looking for drugs and drug paraphernalia, have easier access to drugs,
but are actually maintained on drugs?

Is maintenance now seen as an end in itself?

Should we not instead have as our primary aim a program that
encourages these addicts to become drug free?

That all our efforts and endeavours be directed into making drug
experimentation and addiction medically unwise and socially
unacceptable?

Maintaining needle and syringe programs encourages the intravenous
route of administration of drugs.

Easy access to needles and syringes, whilst for some may prevent
sharing of contaminated needles, but for all is making intravenous
drug taking easier.

Part of the harm minimisation program is to "normalise" drug use and
take away the stigma of drug taking.

This has serious consequences, as what we are talking about is the
illicit use of mind-altering drugs.

Any policy that encourages the normalising of this activity or
changing the public perception of illicit drug use as being wrong is
intrinsically flawed.

We have in Australia a place called The Centre for Harm Reduction,
part of the Macfarlane Burnett Centre.

This centre has the "establishment of rational, evidence-based drug
policies which eschew judgment about personal behaviours and have the
minimisation of harm" as their primary aim.

This policy shows the flaws of harm minimisation.

By avoiding any personal judgments about the taking of illicit drugs
is to allow drug use without any consequences.

Surely this is the manifestation of the addict's personal wish.

Some of the effects of all mind altering drugs are in varying degrees
ó difficulty in paying attention, in concentrating, in focusing their
minds, in retaining information, of making judgments and decisions.

This is quite apart from the problems of dependency, disease and
psychotic episodes.

The drugs also alter behaviour, which has an impact on relationships,
families and therefore on communities.

Surely it is in the best interest of the drug addict to make strong
negative judgments of this behaviour, to make addicts to take full
responsibility for their cure, to tackle the underlying cause of drug
abuse and put all our efforts as a community into encouraging a
drug-free lifestyle.

This approach will not happen where we have as our principle public
health policy on drugs one of harm minimisation, not demand reduction.

JULIANNE WHYTE, LOWESDALE