Source: Canberra Times 
Contact:  
Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 97

Last gasp as drug trial faces new foe

THE PROPOSED ACT heroin trial has struck another hiccup  this time
possibly a fatal one. The Prime Minister, John Howard, has declared himself
strongly opposed to the experiment's going ahead. Although the
Commonwealth, through Health Minister Michael Wooldridge, had previously
given the trial support, it now seems clear that Mr Howard will strongly
oppose any Commonwealth facilitation of the trial. And this, it appears,
would be enough by itself to stop its happening.

Although ordinary drug possession and supply laws are, strictly, matters
for state or territory criminal law, the Commonwealth has a number of clear
constitutional powers in the field. One flows from its treaty obligations
in relation to conventions about narcotic drugs. Another flows from its
Customs powers  particularly relevant given that most illegal narcotics
have been brought in from abroad. And, of course, the ACT is only a
territory, and the Commonwealth can act to override its legislation, as it
did with the Northern Territory and its euthanasia laws. Finally, the ACT
Chief Minister, Kate Carnell, has made it clear that while the ACT is able
and willing to conduct the trial, she expects financial and other support
from the states and the Commonwealth; it now appears that she will not get it.

An opinion poll published over the weekend showed that by a narrow margin,
majority opinion around Australia was against the trial. Of 1200 people
surveyed by the Newspoll organisation, 55 per cent declared themselves
opposed to the idea of a trial involving the provision of heroin to 40
registered users. About 38 per cent declared themselves in favour.

Opposition was particularly strong in rural areas, with two opposed for
every one in favour  a result which is said to have particularly
influenced National Party members. And, it was reported, the Lyons Forum, a
moral conservative parliamentary group responsible for gathering the
bipartisan coalition that knocked out the euthanasia laws, was organising
itself against the ACT trial.

It would probably be unfair to say that John Howard's opposition is based
on the opinion polls. His is the naturally conservative and perhaps
instinctive response to the issue. Those who favour the trial  and that
includes this newspaper  would also be wrong to regard the matter simply
as a territorial rights issue, based on the idea that the decision is for
the citizens of the ACT alone. Rather, it ought to be a matter of returning
to taws to show yet again that the instinctive response has very little
going for it; that the scourge of drugs in the whole Australian community 
including, for that matter, in rural areas  is getting worse, and that it
is about time that fresh approaches were tried.

The first point that needs emphasis is that conventional approaches have
failed, and are continuing to fail. Conventional approaches focus on the
supply side of the drug problem, and on an ultimately unavailing hope that
law enforcement can restrict supply and frighten off demand. It has not
been so for many years. Although police have the occasional spectacular
success in intercepting a drug shipment, or in catching people involved in
organising the rackets, it is unlikely that they put their hands on even a
small percentage of the drugs marketed in Australia.

Paradoxically, their occasional success can help the drug cartels, because
illegality helps keep up the price. The other thing keeping up the price,
of course, is demand, something which, on the evidence, is increasing in
spite of drug education programs. And the combination of illegality and
demand is such that, as countless inquiries and royal commissions have
demonstrated, that it has corrupted significant sections of the law
enforcement system and produced massive secondary crime as abusers of drugs
steal and commit other offences in order to get the money to buy drugs.

The argument in favour of the trial is not a handsup one of saying that
since the law is difficult to enforce, it would be best to repeal the law.
Rather it is one of seeing whether a medical and education model, rather
than an illegality model, might not be the better way of coping with abuse.
It has some other potential. If those admitted to the trial are able to
obtain their heroin legally, they might not be burgling homes in the
community to get the money to get it. They might be better protected
against some of the sideeffects of unknown qualities of drugs bought on
the street. They might feel more able, and less frightened, to seek help
for what is a sickness as much as a crime.

And if the experiment shows promising results, and is extended, there might
be some chance of breaking up the cartels and the profits of those who
trade in drugs, and those whom they corrupt along the way. The cynic might
think these are slim hopes; but even the most hopeful believer in current
models must doubt whether even doubling the resources of the criminal
enforcement system would make the slightest dent in current use.

AND HERE, of course, it is quite possible to portray Mr Howard as a
hypocrite, because the Government over which he presides has actually
significantly reduced the resources going into the model in which he
proclaims to believe.

It is unfortunate that his first public reaction to the health ministers'
tacit goahead for the trial was on talkback radio, particularly on Alan
Jones's show, which panders to the instant opinion and the kneejerk
reaction. Talkback, of its nature, is not profound, reflective or thoughtful.

It is politically difficult for Mr Howard, when confronted by an
interrogator like Alan Jones on talkback radio, to say anything favourable
about a heroin trial. There is no time or opportunity to go into detail of
fact or argument.