Unsuitable cases for treatment

Editorial comment

ONLY one claim made about drug abuse is
undisputed: nothing has worked. Neither
"harm reduction" programmes nor the
superficially attractive "Just Say No"
campaigns have made any real impact.
Police and Customs, too, have seemed
unable to stem the tide. The evidence
suggests that the consumption of all sorts
of narcotics continues to increase.

Yesterday, in the United States, Barry
McCaffrey, director of the president's
Office of National Drug Control Policy,
stated the obvious: "Law enforcement
cannot solve the problem of drug abuse in
America." Only the community, Mr
McCaffrey suggested, had any hope of
winning the war. The best he could offer
was the idea that anyone arrested by the
police should be required to submit to
"rehabilitation" if they tested positive for
drugs.

Oddly enough, a similar notion has occurred
to Grampian's Chief Constable, Dr Ian
Oliver. Having revealed that the amount of
heroin seized by his force last year was
more than double the amount intercepted
the year before, he yesterday demanded
mandatory treatment for offending drug
addicts. Suddenly, yet another approach to
drugrelated crime has become
internationally fashionable.

Unlike Dr Oliver, this newspaper does not
claim to be certain of the best way to
proceed in the fight against
narcoticsrelated crime.

Nevertheless, the suspicion that drugs are
becoming a fact of life is growing into a
conviction. Law enforcement, as Mr
McCaffrey admits, has failed before and is
failing now. But though we may lack the
right answer, we can recognise the wrong
one when we hear it.

Dr Oliver seems hazy, first, on what is and
what is not appropriate law enforcement.
As with his belief that employers should
test their workers, whether guilty or not,
he seems to forget that even addicts are
entitled to some choices.

He also appears optimistic in his belief that
"treatment" is a simple answer to addiction.
The truth is that even with help many
junkies fail to get off drugs. That said, the
real objection against Dr Oliver's proposals
rest on a defence of civil liberties,
particularly for ordinary, innocent workers.

Are their freedoms really to be sacrificed
because of a failure of law enforcement?
Safety at work, while obviously important,
seems an inadequate excuse. Beating crime,
while crucial, is equally no reason to
undermine the free society that the police
are supposed to protect.