THE RIGHT DECISION ON INJECTION HOUSES

THE argument in favor of establishing supervised injection houses for heroin
users, which the Victorian Government yesterday announced it intends to do,
is simple and compelling. The existing prohibition and enforcement
strategies have failed to stem, let alone stop, the flow of heroin to
Australia's streets.

According to an issues paper released by the Government's Drug Policy Expert
Committee, a gram of heroin, which three years ago would have sold for $600,
can now be bought for $25. And while prices have dropped, the purity levels
of what is sold have risen, from 30 per cent to 70 per cent. That is the
supply side; and, as those who work in the hard-pressed treatment and
rehabilitation services for users have repeatedly testified, it has not been
possible to lower the demand for heroin significantly either.

It is evident even from a casual stroll along Russell Street and adjacent
areas of Melbourne that people continue to buy this illegal drug openly, and
to inject it in circumstances that can too easily result in their deaths.

The heroin problem is now so acute that what matters most is reducing the
growing number of heroin-related deaths, which the committee estimates will
have reached 500 a year in Australia by 2005. That is why The Age has long
urged that it is time to test alternatives to the prohibitionist approach,
including the use of supervised injection houses.

The government has accepted a proposal from the Drug Expert Policy
Committee, chaired by Dr David Penington, for a trial of five injection
houses for adults, in the city, St Kilda, Footscray, Springvale and
Fitzroy-Collingwood. Under the proposal the facilities would only be
established with the consent of local councils, and could not be located
near schools, kindergartens or residential areas.

The latter condition will perhaps be more easily stated than achieved: in
suburbs such as St Kilda and Footscray, residential streets are only a
couple of minutes' walk from the areas where heroin is sold, and locating an
injecting house too far from these might not be practicable. There is likely
to be opposition from residents and traders groups, and some people who have
previously supported injection houses in principle may decide that the
principle does not require them to live or work near one. It must be hoped
that the councils concerned will not be swayed by such reasoning.

The not-in-my-backyard argument may be justified when people are being asked
to accept something that is not already in their backyard, such as a toxic
waste dump. But heroin dealing and its related problems, including deaths
from overdoses, are not being imposed on the traders and residents of inner
Melbourne; these things already happen there.

The trial of supervised injection houses offers a chance of reducing some of
the risks the heroin trade poses to users and to those who share the streets
with them. It is not a chance the state can afford to pass up.