A FRESH LOOK AT DRUGS

Heroin trials: The Prime Minister should think again.

IN these early days of his second term of office, the Prime Minister, Mr
John Howard, has the opportunity to revisit some of the policy postures
adopted by his Government in its first term. This is especially so across
the social agenda, where the Government and the community could derive
mutual benefit from a broader, more forward-looking approach.

Mr Howard has signalled he intends to work harder to achieve reconciliation
with the Aboriginal people.

This is welcome.

Another issue he should re-examine is the case for conducting clinical
heroin trials.

As the former Victorian Premier Sir Rupert Hamer wrote in a letter to The
Age yesterday, it is time for enlightened leadership to help combat the
curse of drug addiction.

The flood of cheap heroin on the streets of our major cities has trapped
more and younger Australians in the debilitating, soul-destroying drug
trade.

Despite occasional seizures by federal police and customs agents, it is
obvious that a strict ``law-and-order'' approach to drugs such as heroin no
longer works, if ever it did. Mr Howard should accept this, and open his
mind to a range of policy responses.

The heroin trial proposed in June last year for the Australian Capital
Territory, and vetoed by the Prime Minister, did not represent a reckless
relaxation of existing law. It was to involve a small-scale experiment in
which heroin addicts would be supplied with the drug under tightly
controlled conditions. The concept was strongly supported by state and
federal health ministers.

It had the backing of Dr David Penington, the chairman of Victoria's Drug
Advisory Council, and the Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, was among those on Mr
Howard's side of politics prepared to entertain the possibility that it
offered a better way. But amid over-excited speculation about the advent of
heroin ``shooting galleries'', Mr Howard retreated to a more conventional,
hardline disposition. In a raw display of federal muscle, he forced the
abandonment of the ACT trial by refusing to allow a small quantity of heroin
to be imported legally.

The Prime Minister said he did not favor the trial because it risked sending
out the wrong message to the young, by giving the misleading impression that
society was now ready to tolerate a perfidious drug of addiction.

Doubtless, Mr Howard's judgment was also influenced by public and media
pressure from traditional prohibitionists. Almost 18 months on, it is time
to think again.

When Sir Rupert Hamer puts the case for change, he does so as one of the
nation's most respected former Liberal leaders.

It is a powerful argument from a powerful quarter, and built on the strength
of the self-evident facts. With 70 per cent of our prison population serving
sentences for drug-related offences, with the death of so many young people
through overdoses, and with hospital and police costs soaring, it makes
sense to consider something new. As Sir Rupert notes, Swiss authorities have
reported great success from a similar heroin trial: a high cure rate for
addicts, a significant decline in homelessness and unemployment among drug
users, and a 60 per cent fall in the number of crimes.

It is not part of the Prime Minister's character to flirt with fashion.

But an innate conservatism should not blind him to considered arguments for
change, even radical change.

In seeking to address the plight of heroin, we share Sir Rupert's view that
there is an overwhelming need for a fresh approach.

Checked-by: Don Beck