THE PM MUST LISTEN ON DRUGS

The Prime Minister should heed the advice of others on this problem if
he is to lead on it.

THE decision by Pymble Ladies College in Sydney to expel nine girls
for smoking marijuana has attracted the full approval of the Prime
Minister, Mr John Howard. ``I would hope that all schools would take
the same attitude,'' he said. ``Because if you have a black-and-white
attitude at that stage I think you are far more likely to yield results.''

When Mr Howard talks about a ``black-and-white'' approach to drugs in
schools, he tells us much about his view of the drug problem in the
broader community. Mr Howard has previously advocated a ``zero
tolerance'' approach to policing the use of illicit drugs. His
thinking on the subject does not appear to have moved measurably
forward. As with his dismissal of legalised heroin trials as a ``glib
and simplistic'' response to Australia's epidemic of heroin abuse, Mr
Howard's latest pronouncement on drug abuse has been met with informed
criticism from those closest to the problem. Public and private school
principals have condemned the Prime Minister's remarks as
inappropriate and offensive. The president of the Victorian
Association of State School Principals, Mr Ted Brierley, was blunt in
his assessment of Mr Howard's comments: ``He has no real understanding
of the issues.''

For principals and school communities, the question of what to do
about students found possessing, using or trading in drugs is not
abstract. It is a real problem. Victorian schools expelled 27 students
over drug-related matters last year. Expulsion is a last resort
measure with life-long implications for the students involved. Mr
Howard's advocacy of punitive measures smacks of the sort of thinking
that has driven the fight against drugs in this country for decades.
It is an approach that has demonstrably failed. Drugs - especially
heroin - have become more readily available and cheaper on Australian
streets than ever before. The number of young people dying as a
consequence has risen at an alarming rate. A prohibitive regime alone
does not and cannot work. By enunciating such views yet again, Mr
Howard sends all sorts of messages, particularly to the young: that he
is out of touch with street realities, that he is stubborn in his
refusal to accept the advice and views of others more experienced in
the drugs question, that he is reluctant to let go of an approach that
belongs to the 1950s and not the 1990s.

Drug abuse is not just about crime and punishment. It is about
dependence and hopelessness, about health and wellbeing, about boredom
and joblessness, about our failure as a society to find imaginative
and just solutions to a problem that is killing young Australians
daily. There are no ``black-and-white'' solutions, but many shades of
grey Mr Howard would do well to explore.