UNTYING THE DRUG KNOT

Just 100 young pot smokers are at the core of the Victoria Police's
step-by-step attempt to cut the Gordian knot that has made drug law reform
almost impossible in this state.

The offenders, mostly men aged 17 to 21, became the "guinea pigs" of a
six-month cannabis cautioning system on trial in Melbourne's northern
suburbs, aimed at diverting them away from court appearances and towards
health advice centres.

Under the trial, the 100 were allowed to go uncharged for using or
possessing cannabis, provided they met tight criteria and they consented to
a caution, a formal process in police stations with a police sergeant or
more senior officer present.

Although people were eligible for the cautions for carrying up to 50 grams
of cannabis (a bag that might cost $600) for personal use, more than 80 of
those involved had only 5 grams or less, enough for a couple of joints.

The scheme is being evaluated for a report to the chief commissioner, Mr
Neil Comrie, within weeks. It has already been lifted for a statewide trial
in Western Australia, and is being examined by other forces.

Mr Comrie said this week that he had been encouraged by initial reports of
the trial in Broadmeadows and would consider whether to extend it
statewide. "We will then start turning our minds to whether or not we ought
to include other drugs in that program," he said.

Although the northern suburbs scheme is only a small step in policing, it
is a giant leap for the philosophical approach to drug law enforcement.

It amounts to a de facto decriminalisation of cannabis for low-level users
who are not trying to deal or committing other offences, a position that
was not obtainable less than two years ago. "It's a step in the right
direction, and an important step," says the drugs expert Professor David
Penington.

It was only in June 1996 that the proposal by Professor Penington, head of
the Premier's Drug Advisory Council, for decriminalisation of minor
cannabis usage was overwhelmingly rejected by the coalition. This was
despite the recommendation having come forward after a long inquiry and
report, and being made for two significant reasons.

The first was to eliminate the waste of police and court resources involved
in prosecuting minor users of cannabis. The second was that in order to
reach young people at risk of harm from using more serious drugs like
heroin, it was necessary to establish and maintain credibility. The inquiry
judged that was impossible while the law still criminalised the use of a
substance widely accepted in the community and recognised as much less
dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

"In fact," says Professor Penington, "the Government judged it couldn't
proceed with our recommendations, because there wasn't sufficient public
support. There was too much public concern about it. If in fact we are
moving in this direction, the community is getting used to looking at
things in a different way."

The Penington approach to heroin was that first-offence heroin users should
not be taken to court but get an official warning and referred to
counselling. It did not involve changing the criminal status of heroin.

Now working on drug law issues for Australia's capital city lord mayors,
Professor Penington believes there has been a substantial change in police
attitudes and the trial was "an attempt to find a way to implement the sort
of approach we had recommended. But it was done in their own way, and not
using the words we used".

The most crucial aspect of the trial was that it could be instituted under
police operating rules, a procedure which did not require fresh legislative
authority. It could be instituted by Mr Comrie himself, although the Police
Minister would have been informed or consulted. Two senior police are in
charge of the trial: Superintendent Peter Macievic (policy branch), and
Chief Superintendent Peter Driver, in charge of I District, covering
suburbs from Brunswick to Broadmeadows and Essendon.

As well as being in line with the Penington thinking, it was an extension
of the police caution system that had worked successfully for many years
for a variety of offenders under 17 and for adults caught shop-stealing.

Mr Macievic said the trial required extensive preparation time in testing
and design. Criteria also required offenders had no prior drug offences, or
any other offence at the time of apprehension.This is why just 100 people
were eligible out of the thousands of police contacts over the trial period.

According to Ms Angie Laussel, acting executive director of the Court
Network support service, keeping young people out of courts is crucial if
at all possible. She says that convictions for minor cannabis use still
could have serious consequences in people being blocked from a number of
career paths. It also could lead to shame and banishment for people in
traditional families.

The trial began on 21 July last year, and is continuing in that area. A key
element of the caution is that people are given a form with comprehensive
information on cannabis's effects and dangers, especially for long-term
users.

Mr Driver said the trial had been well accepted by the police involved, who
were often constables of a similar age to the people caught with cannabis.