PUB] Date: Tue 24th June, 1997
Source: The Scotsman, Edinburgh, UK (http://www.scotsman.com)
Contact: 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.