Heroin and other illicit drugs: is the Howard Government's drug strategy adequate?

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...
`The Prime Minister's new package of treatment, training, education and research funding represents a combination of initiatives that will contribute to a reduction in drug problems'
Professor Wayne Hall, director of the National Alcohol and Drug Research Centre

`It's time to decriminalise some soft drugs and to ease up on users, as distinct from large dealers, of harder drugs. Otherwise, law-abiding citizens will increasingly live frightened lives while our society is destroyed by the desperately addicted in pursuit of the seemingly unattainable'
Gerard Henderson commentator for The Age and executive director of the Sydney Institute

On November 2, 1997, the prime minister, Mr John Howard, announced his government's drug strategy, titled, Tough on Drugs, the National Illicit Drug Strategy.
The strategy has immediately met with a mixed response. There are those who consider its blend of measures wise and who are heartened by the government's apparent resolve to address the problem. There are others who consider its emphasis wrong-headed and even those who regard it as essentially a vote-catching exercise.

Background
Australia has a significant illicit drug problem. Last year, it has been estimated, there were 12 heroin-related deaths every week. There have been numerous attempts made both federally and on a state level to address this problem.
A number of commentators have suggested that some of the initiatives either tried or suggested in Australia have shown a movement towards a harm minimisation approach. A harm minimisation approach tends to start from the premise that some level of drug-taking will always occur within a society and therefore governments need to adopt strategies which will help to reduce the risks drug users encounter.
Included among such strategies are needle exchange programs which have been employed in Australia and have been credited with having helped to control the incidence of HIV among Australian heroin users. Also part of a harm minimisation approach is the provision of safe injection venues and education programs which give information on how to use drugs with relative safety.
There are those who have suggested that a harm minimisation approach is incompatible with the prohibition of drugs. Currently the use of heroin is illegal in all Australian states and territories. The position with regard to the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana is far less clear. In some states such as South Australia use of marijuana may do no more than attract a $10 fine. The maximum fine available in that state for the cultivation, possession and use of marijuana is $150. In Queensland, on the other hand cultivation, possession and use of marijuana can attract fines of up to $30,000 and a jail term of up to 15 years.
In March, 1996, Victorian Premier's Drugs Advisory Council released its report, Drugs and Our Community. The report essentially proposed a harm minimisation approach, making eight recommendations, including a recommendation that marijuana be decriminalised.
This recommendation and another that would have reduced penalties for heroin users were not adopted by the Victorian Government. That government is however putting in place its own drugs strategy titled, Turning the Tide, which draws on some of the recommendations of the Drugs Advisory Council (commonly referred to as the Penington Committee after its chairman Professor David Penington).
Over a five year period the Australian Capital Territory developed a proposal to trial the controlled distribution of heroin to registered addicts. This initiative was ultimately quashed by the federal government in August, 1997. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, in particular indicated his strong disapproval of the scheme.
Some commentators have suggested that the Howard Government was prompted to produce its own drug strategy in response to the vacuum created after the ACT heroin trial was not allowed to go ahead.
The principal features of the Howard Government's Tough on Drugs strategy is that it will direct $43.8 million towards law enforcement, including the employment of more Australian Federal Police officers to form specialised `strike teams' ; improved Customs surveillance and the establishment of police and customs operations in the Torres Strait.
The government also plans to spend the same amount ($43.8 million) on education, rehabilitation and research. Included in this will be a school drugs strategy; community-based drugs prevention programs; the establishment of a national drugs information centre; funding for non-government treatment centres and medical research into prevention and treatment.
There are a number of Internet sites which provide useful background information on the illicit drug situation in Australia.
The Penington Committee Report, properly titled, Drugs and Our Community, Report of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council is available on the Internet. This is a very lengthy document, 143 pages, however, it is a valuable source of much information about drug use in Australia and attempts to control that use.
Also available on the Internet are the aims and objectives of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation. This is an influential opinion-forming body and its aims and objectives make interesting reading.
Both of these sites present the harm minimisation approach. For an argument against this approach see Jill Pearman's Situation Paper on Drugs in Australia.

Arguments in favour of the federal government's National Illicit Drug Strategy
Supporters of the government's strategy note what the prime minister has referred to as its `balanced approach.' This is a reference to the mixed emphasis the strategy has adopted, with funding being directed toward law enforcement, education of potential users, the rehabilitation of established users and research into treatments and preventative measures.
Mr Howard described his government's initiative in this manner, `You have got to approach it in a two-fisted way. On the one hand you have got to be tough on the law enforcement front. But on the other hand you have also got to understand that we need to try to help to rehabilitate people who become victims of drug-taking.'
Matthew Townsend, a Melbourne barrister and a board member of the Victorian Drug Reform Foundation, has given qualified endorsement to the federal government's `balanced' strategy. Mr Townsend has noted, `The Prime Minister's statement on drugs is a welcome contribution to dealing with illicit drugs in Australia. It appears the Government is gradually placing less reliance on law enforcement and more emphasis on rehabilitation and treatment. This is a positive move.'
Mr Townsend observed that the usual expenditure split between enforcement and treatment was 70:30, whereas in the current strategy the split was 50:50.
Professor Wayne Hall, director of the National Alcohol and Drug research Centre has claimed, `The Prime Minister's new package of treatment, training, education and research funding represents a combination of initiatives that will contribute to a reduction in drug problems.'
Supporters of this combined approach note that illicit drug use is a complex problem requiring a multifaceted response. They note with approval that the current strategy does not simply attempt to prevent illicit drugs entering or being produced in Australia. It also attempts, via education, to reduce demand for these substances.
In addition it shows a readiness to see illicit drug use as a health problem for users, rather than simply seeing it as a criminal offence. The money being directed toward rehabilitation has been praised by a number of organisations already working in this area to whom the government will be offering financial support.
Brian Watters of the Salvation Army has praised the strategy because he believes it has avoided `this business that we are going to lock all those people up who are using drugs and make criminals out of them ... It's a very humane ... approach.'
Relatedly supporters of the strategy applaud the government's willingness to direct funds toward research into treatment and prevention. Keith Woollard, the president of the Australian Medical Association, has endorsed the plan in its entirety, but has been particularly impressed by its focus on research.
`The research into methods of treatment is likely to be the best value for money out of this package.'
Though numbers of the supporters of its strategy have praised its emphasis on treatment, education and research, the government itself has stressed the importance it attaches to its law enforcement effort.
The government intends the Australian Federal Police to establish three 18-member strike teams. These teams are to focus on the large-scale distributors, `the barons' , who control the release of drugs on Australian streets. The teams, though probably based in Sydney, will be mobile.
The federal government is also planning to purchase three high speed patrol boats for Australian Customs services and to establish a permanent Australian Federal Police presence on Thursday Island.
In addition some $4 million will be directed towards funding the National Heroin Signature Program to study drug trafficking patterns and improve witness protection.
Some supporters of the federal government's strategy have been supportive of these law enforcement measures. A spokesperson for the Australian Federal Police has stated that the strategy is `very strong and positive' while a spokesperson for the AFP Commissioner has observed that the strategy should help to prevent drugs hitting the streets.
The government has also defended itself against accusations that all the current increase in drug law enforcement spending does is restore funds previously lopped from Customs and AFP budgets. The Prime Minister has claimed that previous reductions to the budgets of both Customs and the AFP where not made in areas dealing with drug law enforcement.

Arguments against the federal government's National Illicit Drug Strategy
Opponents of the federal government's new illicit drugs strategy believe that the balance of approaches it presents will not adequately address the problem.
One of the major criticisms that has been made is that the new strategy still gives too much prominence to law enforcement, especially in its attempts to prevent illicit drugs entering Australia.
Gerard Henderson, in a piece published in the Age on November 4, 1997, argued, `The ever-increasing growth of international trade makes drug seizures even more difficult. Certainly there is a role for the AFP (Australian Federal Police) and Customs in preventing the importation of hard drugs. But we should not falsely assume that the AFP, plus or minus 54 officers, can do all that much about drugs in Australia.
The same point has been made by Matthew Townsend of the Victorian Drug Reform Foundation. Mr Townsend has observed, `... the Government is ... planning to spend $43.8 million over three years "attacking the drug barons". This is throwing good money after bad.'
Mr Townsend quotes Mr H. Wollaston, Australian Customs comptroller commenting in 1908 on the decision to ban the importation of edible heroin.
`It is very doubtful if such prohibition has lessened to any great extent the amount which is brought into Australia. Owing to total prohibition the price of opium has risen enormously (but) the opium is still imported pretty freely,' Mr Wollaston claimed.
Critics of the government's strategy note that even today the Australian Federal Police estimate that only 10 per cent of the heroin entering Australia is detected, though a total of $450 million is spent annually trying to eradicate the problem.
Interestingly, members of the federal opposition have criticised the amount being directed toward drug law enforcement and controlling illegal importation, but not because they believe such expenditure is wasted. Rather they have criticised the funds as inadequate and have claimed that they do no more than return funding that has previously been lost as part of the current government's cost-cutting policies.
A similar criticism has been made by the Australian Federal Police Association. The Association's national secretary, Luke Cornelius, has claimed that staff levels are now the same as those in 1983, despite increased work load, and that recruiting a further 54 officers will not replace the 200 officers leaving annually.
Critics have also maintained that despite its emphasis on rehabilitation, the strategy's failure to decriminalise marijuana use or to reduce penalties for heroin users means that many small time marijuana users will continue to find themselves in conflict with the law and heroin users will to face legal penalties. There are also those who have criticised the government's plan to promote anti-drug education in schools. The principal criticism made is that the type of education programs being proposed are likely to be ineffective.
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has indicated that his government has a `zero target' for drug use in schools and that the education program his strategy refers to would promote a `zero tolerance' philosophy regarding illicit drug use.
Opponents of this strategy maintain that the intended drug education programs would emphasis the dangers of illicit drugs and encourage young people to abstain totally from their use.
Critics of such an education campaign have compared it to the `Just say no' campaign in the United States which is generally regarded as a failure. It has been claimed that many young people tend to distrust such campaigns and will continue to experiment with illicit substances.
Gerard Henderson has claimed that research suggests that some 50 per cent of boys and 40 per cent of girls will have experimented with marijuana before they leave school.
Those who accept such figures tend to argue that drug experimentation among young people is virtually inevitable and that education programs should not assume that total abstinence for all is an achievable aim. Instead, they argue, what is required is a harm minimisation approach which firstly acknowledges that a significant number of young people will use illicit drugs and secondly aims to make them aware of how to do so in the safest manner possible.
This view has been put by Professor Bill Saunders from Curtin University's psychology department. Professor Saunders has claimed that most young people experiment with drugs as an adolescent rite of passage and that they should be taught how to minimise the risks.
Other critics of the strategy have also complained that it is too timid. According to this line of argument, the Government needs to consider harm minimisation strategies such as safe injecting facilities, where heroin addicts can self-administer the drug in an hygienic environment and under supervision. Such facilities are also referred to as `shooting galleries'.
Some of these critics also maintain that the government must consider the decriminalisation of marijuana and the reduction of penalties for drug users and small dealers.
This view has been put by Gerard Henderson, who has argued, `It's time to decriminalise some soft drugs and to ease up on users, as distinct from large dealers, of harder drugs. Otherwise, law-abiding citizens will increasingly live frightened lives while our society is destroyed by the desperately addicted in pursuit of the seemingly unattainable.'
There are also critics of the Government's strategy who maintain that the Australian Capital Territory heroin distribution trial should have gone ahead and that a similar scheme should have been trialed as part of the federal strategy.
Those who hold this view maintain that for some addicts the regulated supply of heroin is the only way to break them out of a dependence on illegal suppliers and to free them from the need to steal and commit other crimes to support their habit. It has also been claimed that overseas trials point to the probable success of such schemes.

Further implications
The immediate fate of the federal government's illicit drugs strategy will depend in significant measure on the reception it receives from the various state and territory governments.
This analysis has been written during the week after Mr Howard announced the strategy and prior to its presentation to the various heads of government on November 7, 1997. Already, however, there are some signs of disharmony.
The New South Wales premier, Mr Carr was openly critical of the strategy very soon after its announcement. The Western Australian premier also had reservations, feeling that his state was likely to receive insufficient assistance. The Victorian premier, Mr Kennett, expressed guarded support for the strategy, and expressed concern that the federal strategies not duplicate the Victorian initiative titled, Turning the Tide.
There is, it would appear, the real possibility that the federal scheme may be in some conflict with proposals likely to be given effect in Victoria.
The Victorian Government is being asked to consider establishing `shooting galleries', that is, hygienic, controlled venues where addicts can self-administer drugs they have purchased elsewhere. Such a development is being proposed in the high drug-use area of Springvale. If it goes ahead it is almost certain to be at odds with the emphasis of the federal government's program which does not appear to favour such harm minimisation approaches.
The federal government has announced that it will shortly be seeking the states' co-operation to introduce tougher uniform drug trafficking penalties across Australia. It will be interesting to see if the states give this proposal their support. Penalties for drug traffickers, especially those dealing in hard drugs, are a less disputed issue than either the treatment of addicts or the decriminalisation of marijuana.
Over the longer term it is difficult to estimate the likely success of the government's strategy.
Critics have suggested that even with increased police and customs manpower it is all but impossible to prevent most illegal shipments of drugs entering the country. Previous experience in this country and the experience of other nations would appear to bear this out.
It has also been suggested that if the government's drug education program does recommend total abstinence, then overseas experience suggests this is unlikely to work.
On the other hand, however, it has been claimed that the emphasis on rehabilitation of addicts rather than on punishment is encouraging. It has also been suggested that the $4m directed to medical research into prevention and treatment and the $1.3m directed toward non-heroin drug trials are a valuable shift in emphasis which could yield useful results.
The federal government has openly acknowledged that it does not expect to see significant results from its strategy in less than three or four years. It has also indicated that the announcements made on November 2, 1997, represent stage one of its plans and that further announcements will be made in the new year.
It is doubtful that anyone dealing with the illicit drug problem expects a total solution. What will be looked for are indicators of whether the current scheme appears to be taking Australia in the right direction.
One thing that does appear certain is that if a more liberal approach centring on decriminalisation or marijuana, controlled supply of heroin to addicts and a range of harm minimisation strategies should prove to be the correct course to adopt, then both the current prime minister and many within his party would find this very difficult to support. Many of those in the Australian electorate would probably find such a policy equally unpalatable.

Sources
The Age
3/11/97 page 1 news item by Gervase Greene, `Howard's big hit on drugs'
3/11/97 page 1 news item by Caroline Overington, `An addict's shake that's OK'
3/11/97 page 4 news item by Gervase Greene, `Drug patrols in Torres Strait to be stepped up'
3/11/97 page 4 news item by Meaghan Shaw, `Teach the young to use drugs wisely'
3/11/97 page 15 comment by Matthew Townsend, `Welcome gambit in the war on drugs'
4/11/97 page 4 news item by Gareth Boreham and Gervase Greene, `MPs lash Howard over drug strategy'
4/11/97 page 12 editorial, `Howard's drug strategy only the first step'
4/11/97 page 12 cartoon by Wilcox, `How the Howard drug education strategy works'
4/11/97 page 12 letter by Professor Michael Carr-Gregg, `We need a sense of purpose'
4/11/97 page 12 letter by Peter Guppy, `Acceptance part of the solution'
4/11/97 page 12 letter by Barry Aitchison, `Moral arguments have failed'
4/11/97 page 13 comment by Gerard Henderson, `Tough talk won't win drugs war'

The Australian
3/11/97 page 1 news item by John Ellicott, `Just say zero: The $87m war on drugs'
3/11/97 page 4 news item by John Ellicott, Jody Scott and Jennifer Foreshew, `PM's medicine washes with most'
3/11/97 page 4 news item by Ben Hutchings, `Pharmacist runs gauntlet of heroin hot-spot'
3/11/97 page 4 comment by John Short, `Abuse a question of health'
3/11/97 page 4 news item by Diana Thorp, `Ex-addicts want to tell cautionary tales'
3/11/97 page 10 editorial, `Drug strategy might not be enough'
3/11/97 page 15 comment by Wayne Hall, `Tougher law enforcement won't cure killer drug epidemic'
4/11/97 page 2 news item by John Kerin, Rachel Hawes and Matt Price, `PM to press states for uniform drug penalties'
4/11/97 page 2 news item by Fiona Kennedy, `Islands' slow boat docks'
4/11/97 page 12 letters under the heading, `Shallow approach will not solve drug problem'

The Herald Sun
3/11/97 page 1 news item by Andrew Butcher, `Your drug fight'
3/11/97 page 8 comment by Andrew Butcher, `PM wants to hit home'
3/11/97 page 8 news item by Andrew Cummins, `Strike teams key to fight'
3/11/97 page 8-9 news item by Kim Wilson and Andrew Cummins, `Mixed support for tough stand'
3/11/97 page 9 news item by Andrew Cummins, `Teaching students to say no'
3/11/97 page 9 news item, `Cure bid instead of prison'
3/11/97 page 18 editorial, `Howard's hard option'
4/11/97 page 5 news item by Damon Johnston, `Legal drug house plan'
4/11/97 page 5 news item by Lainie Barnes, `New policy draws fire'
4/11/97 page 5 news item by Clinton Porteous, `School lessons from users'
4/11/97 page 20 letter by Stuart Chugg, `Hit drugs at the core'

Internet
* It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
* Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
* Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.

There are a number of Internet sites which provide useful background information on the illicit drug situation in Australia.
The Penington Committee Report, properly titled, Drugs and Our Community, Report of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council is available on the Internet. This is a very lengthy document, 143 pages, however, it is a valuable source of much information about drug use in Australia and attempts to control that use.
The Drugs and Our Community, Report of the Premier's Drug Advisory Council can be found at http://www.legalize-usa.org/documents/HTML/pdac.htm
Also available on the Internet are the aims and objectives of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation.
This is an influential opinion-forming body and its aims and objectives make interesting reading. The Foundation's aims and objectives can be found at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~petercle/druglaw/aims&obs.html
Both of these sites present the harm minimisation approach. For an argument against this approach see Jill Pearman's Situation Paper on Drugs in Australia. This paper can be found at http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidrug/pearman.htm