POLICY ON DRUGS NEEDS RIGHT MIX

In his most recent foray into public debate about illegal drugs, Alex
Wodak (Herald, April 3) again repeats the tired old mantra that law
enforcement and harm reduction are incompatible policies. Harm
reduction, it seems, is to be identified solely with public health and
treatment programs and certainly not with drug law enforcement in any
shape or form.

These claims are part of a sterile debate about drugs policy which has
been going on for far too long in Australia. On one side are those who
believe we could reduce the harm caused by illegal drugs if only we
spent enough money on law enforcement.

On the other are those who believe we could reduce the harm caused by
illegal drugs if only we spent enough money on treatment.

The unpalatable truth is that law enforcement and treatment both
contribute to harm reduction. In fact, both actually depend on each
other for their beneficial effects.

Without drug law enforcement, fewer people would enter and remain in
treatment. Without treatment, law enforcement would be less effective
in limiting drug-related crime.

It is true that law enforcement has failed to stem the supply of and
demand for illegal drugs. It is just as true that treatment and
education have failed to stem the growth in overdose fatalities.

These facts do not undermine the case for drug law enforcement or
treatment. Our problems might have been worse in the absence of either.

Taken too literally, harm reduction is just as naively optimistic as
prohibition.

The sad truth is that drugs policy is just an exercise in damage
control. It is sensible to ask whether we have got the right mix of
investment in drug law enforcement and treatment.

This is an issue which should be settled empirically, though, not
through endless head banging between drug legalisers and drug warriors.

Dr Don Weatherburn,
Director, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research, Sydney.