SENSATIONALISM NO WAY TO FIGHT DRUG ADDICTION

Drugs policy arouses strong emotions. People see drug users and fear
the unknown. The traditional response from politicians, particularly
conservatives, has been to exploit these fears for political gain.
The outcome has been an over-reliance on law enforcement as a means
of stamping out both the supply and use of harmful drugs.

In 2003, the House of Representatives standing committee on family
and community affairs inquired into drug abuse and produced a report
that was in keeping with the history of drug policy. It called for
the abandonment of harm minimisation as the principal objective of
the National Drug Strategy. The committee wanted prevention and
abstinence-based treatment to be the focus of government policy.

This position is partially reflected in the Federal Government's
"tough on drugs" policy. Penalties have been increased for drug
offences, funding has been increased for drug law enforcement, the
Government has run several prevention campaigns based on dramatic
images of the dangers associated with drug use and money has been
directed to abstinence-based treatment services. All the while, harm
reduction and other treatment services have remained chronically under-funded.

Given this history, the recently released report on amphetamines and
other synthetic drugs by the federal Parliamentary Joint Committee on
the Australian Crime Commission is a brave document.

Most notably, in contrast to the report from the House of
Representatives Standing Committee, the committee unanimously
supported harm minimisation and recommended that "harm-reduction
strategies and programs receive more attention and resources".

In its conclusions, the committee said "prohibition, while
theoretically a logical and properly intentioned strategy, is not
effective". It also argued that "the current national approach to
illicit drugs - supply reduction, demand reduction and harm reduction
- - will achieve greater outcomes if a better balance between these
approaches can be reached". In common parlance, this means there
should be less emphasis on law enforcement and more on education and
drug treatment.

Unfortunately, it is a rare event when any government body decides to
make drug policy recommendations that are based on evidence. The
report was not received warmly by the Government.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and
Community Affairs has also launched another drug-related inquiry,
seemingly to counter the recommendations made by the joint committee.
And in its recent hearings, the chairwoman of the committee, Bronwyn
Bishop, attacked representatives from the Department of Health for
publishing documents containing harm minimisation messages, saying
"this document is full of harm minimisation. The Prime Minister said
that he is opposed to harm minimisation and that we do not have it."

Professor Margaret Hamilton, a respected drug expert with more than
30 years' experience in the field, received a particularly harsh
broadside for also using this type of terminology, as well as for
making the sensible observation that moral considerations have
historically played too great a role in drug debates.

Bishop is on a mission to ensure the Government's drug prevention
programs are sensationalised, going as far as calling for a campaign
based on the message that "this is going to scramble your brains".

In this climate, the Government's drug policy is unlikely to change
markedly in response to the joint committee's recommendations. Yet
the members of the committee have signalled that there are now
politicians from across the political spectrum prepared to listen and
act on the evidence.

It is hoped there will come a time when enough politicians recognise
that drug use disorders are a health problem that cannot be solved by
harsh drug laws or sensationalised advertising.

Andrew Macintosh is deputy director of the Australia Institute.