BRAVE MOVE BY STANHOPE REBUFFED

THE ACT Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, has seemingly bashed his head against
a brick wall - at least in the short term - when it comes to broadening the
search to find solutions to the ACT's and Australia's heroin problem.

Mr Stanhope had written to Prime Minister John Howard urging a
government-endorsed heroin trial, under which some hard-core addicts would
get heroin on prescription in the short term coupled with support programs
that would help them kick the habit altogether. While being given the
prescription heroin, the hope is that they would not revert to crime to pay
for heroin to support their habit. And that would give them the breathing
space to break the habit. Moreover, the heroin received on prescription
would be of a known grade, thus reducing the propensity for overdose.

Mr Stanhope has been rebuffed. His move required considerable political
courage, and for that he is to be commended. It is easier for a politician
to follow than to lead. The bulk of popular opinion would be against a
heroin trial or indeed any liberalisation of drug laws. That is not
surprising, given the demonisation of illicit drugs. It would be easy for
any politician to follow the popular mood. But that way results in the
greater harm for the greater number. Four decades of zero tolerance and
prohibitionism have seen a great upswing in the number of users and
addicts. Prohibition has caused the price of illicit drugs to rise and the
creation of a black market. In these conditions, suppliers actively recruit
new users to keep the profits flowing. If demand were curtailed through a
heroin trial, the black market would contract. And in any event hard-core
addicts who obtained heroin on prescription would not have to turn to crime
to feed their habit.

We know that prohibition does not work. Mr Stanhope is right in seeking
other remedies. No-one expects a single remedy to work. However, it is
silly to deny ourselves the chance of a promising remedy without even a trial.

Those opposed to a heroin trial on the grounds that supplying mind-altering
drugs is morally wrong should at least recognise that anything that might
result in fewer users in the long run is worth a try. A heroin trial has
that aim.

Those opposed on the pragmatic ground that they feel a trial would be
ineffective should have little difficulty in putting their beliefs to the
test to see if that is actually the case.

The case for a strategy of harm minimisation is a strong one. Indeed, it is
a strategy of most people who contribute to the drugs debate. Mr Howard no
doubt is convinced that his prohibitionist stand is one that will minimise
harm to drug users and potential drug users - even if such a stand is
likely to minimise political harm to him and his party. But he is probably
wrong on this. And certainly he cannot be proved right until a heroin drug
trial is given a chance.

It may seem, given Mr Howard's seemingly intractable opposition to a heroin
trial, that Mr Stanhope is wasting his time. Not so. The more the leaders
of state and territory governments display an open mind and a determination
not to shut the door to some solutions on ideological or religious grounds
the more prohibitionists will be isolated and the more public opinion will
change.

The shockingly wasteful deaths and injuries through overdoses, the
appalling level of crime to feed habits and the deterioration of young
lives because of addiction are reasons for continuing to pursue all efforts
to minimise the harm of the drug scourge.