STATES READY TO BLOCK HOWARD ON DRUGS BLITZ

Canberra bureau chief GREG ANSLEY sees problems ahead for the PM's crime
policies.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard's bid to push the nation towards
zero-tolerance crime policies as part of his "war on drugs" campaign will
run against tough opposition.

The proposal, under which police would blanket targeted areas for even
minor offences, was raised after talks with Prime Minister Jenny Shipley in
New Zealand.

Two key states and the Australian Capital Territory have already rejected
the plan ahead of the meeting Mr Howard will hold tomorrow with the head of
America's Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh.

"There is never a bigger issue than the safety and security of our children
and 1 will do anything, I'll go to any gathering, I'll walk any distance if
1 think it can make a contribution towards reducing the harm that is being
caused by drugs in our community," Mr Howard said.

Although concern is mounting in Australia at the size and growth of the
drug trade reinforced by further warnings from the International Narcotics
Control Board this week - critics believe zero-tolerance might cause more
problems that it would solve.

Key among the concerns are the potential for the policy to further alienate
police forces from the general community for small real reward, and an
almost inevitable impact on Aborigines and race relations.

Mr Howard's enthusiasm for zero-tolerance, resting heavily on a dramatic
reduction in New York's crime rate, has also widened the distance between
the federal Government and supporters of alternatives such as legalised
heroin and safe injecting rooms for registered addicts.

It also runs counter to the continuing debate on the legalisation of
cannabis, which was dealt another blow by an appeal by the International
Narcotics Board to resist calls from pro-legalisation pressure groups. But
zero-tolerance has been firmly rejected by Victoria's Liberal Premier, Jeff
Kennett, and his South Australian counterpart, John Olsen, and has been
criticised by groups such as the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia.

The policy has also been questioned in a new paper by Dr Peter Grabosky,
director of the Australian Institute of Criminology in Canberra.

Dr Grabosky cautioned against the use of declining rates of crime in the
US, which were influenced by such other factors as a sustained period of
economic growth, a significant fall in the use of crack cocaine,
stabilisation of crack markets and a decline in related gang warfare, the
shift of baby-boomers beyond the crime-prone years, and a wide range of
policing and sentencing policies. "Unfortunately, zero-tolerance policing
has been seized upon as something of a magic bullet," he said.

"Policing is a very complex undertaking and strict enforcement of petty
crime is but one of a set of tools [which] may be appropriate in certain
places at certain times, but it is not a panacea."

Dr Grabosky said New York's anticrime strategy was based not so much on
zero-tolerance as on analysis based on accurate and timely intelligence and
on the accountability of local patrol commanders.

He said the introduction of zero-tolerance in Australia would reverse a
trend away from the strict enforcement of petty offences and run against
the strong argument by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody against the use of the criminal justice system to control minor
offences by indigenous people.

Dr Grabosky warned that the indiscriminate enforcement of the law was
likely to destroy public trust in the police, increase police reliance on
force rather than diplomacy, cause more problems for arresting officers,
and considerably increase the cost of law enforcement.