COMMUNITY AND DRUGS

Ministerial Action Committee on Drugs chairman Jim Anderton says "the whole
community" must get behind the movement to stamp out the use of
methamphetamine. What does he mean?

This week a UN report said we have one of the highest rates of ecstasy and
amphetamine abuse in the world, second only to Thailand.

Twice in as many weeks, the news from the UN is awful.

It is probable that, as in most such surveys, those remote and highly paid
researchers are not comparing apples with apples. However, it is also
likely it is far worse, and for anyone who has cared to look, evidence of
the flowering of the sociopathic drug methamphetamine can hardly be a surprise.

Daily in our courts are the results of the growing attraction to and
dependence on that drug, which causes depression, paranoia and feelings of
isolation. And all the time the manufacturers, many of whom have gang
connections, according to police, are profiting handsomely from the trade.

The police association has responded with a call for a commission of
inquiry into the use and threat of methamphetamines. Mr Anderton says the
Government has already committed resources to combating that "pure evil"
and that it is a community issue.

That's what politicians say when they run out of ideas. That glib comment
(which nicely absolves the drug making-and-taking community) implies
lethargy or tolerance to the point of complicity by everyone else; like
child abuse, drugs are the fault of the whole "community".

But the "community" has no control over the material and logistical
resources needed to combat drug abuse. The "community" is, in fact,
extremely worried by the growth of the drug and the crime that it spawns
and is fully aware its harm runs far deeper than crippling abusers' minds.

Pharmacists in many cities have wisely networked to warn of the irregular
buying of common ingredients to make the drug. That is an example of community.

Nevertheless many drug labs have access to alternative bulk chemical
supplies. The "community" would no doubt wish that every effort was thrown
into strangling off all of those other sources. Apart from public vigilance
and the need to report suspicions to police, is there much more that can be
usefully done by the "community"? There are obvious reservations about
making citizens' arrests of lab technicians, given the fear, and notoriety,
of organised crime.

The "community" would rather that police had the powers and the numbers to
make drug-making an extremely hazardous occupation because the risk of
being caught was so high.

Similarly, there needs to be "zero tolerance" of those who take the drug.
Just because it happens does not mean "society" blithely accepts it.

Of course "the community" needs to ensure the young are not ensnared by
methamphetamine. That safeguard requires wise counsel during a child's
formative years. But what of those parents who are themselves delinquent?
How effective is community effort, such as drugs education through schools,
once those attitudes and patterns are established?

For its own protection the "community" already accepts that the drug is a
curse and that its use needs to be stamped out. That is why it has placed
the stewardship of public resources in the hands of its politicians.