Act Chief Minister Jon Stanhope is probably bashing 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 is to write to Prime Minister John Howard urging a government-endorsed heroin trial, under which some hare-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 a life of crime in order to pay for enough 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’s move has required considerable political courage, and for that he is to be commended. It would be easy for any politician to follow rather than lead. The bulk of popular opinion would be against a heroin trial or indeed and liberalisation of drug laws. That is not surprising given the huge 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 causes 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 events hard-core addicts who obtained heroin on prescription would not have to turn to crime I order 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 on the ground 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 hard 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 at least 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 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.