TASMANIA needs a healthy debate about drug policy. But we don’t need the issue to become politicised along party lines.

Politicising the issue of illicit drugs in that way usually amounts to calling for tougher penalties and creating fear, thus potentially driving those who do have problematic drug use further underground and further away from appropriate help.

And as with many political campaigns, it encourages participants to peddle misinformation to support their cause. Cheap shots, on behalf of any political party, will not contribute to finding and implementing evidence-based policies that effectively minimise the harms caused by drug use and supply, and appropriately prevent and punish the trafficking and supply of illicit drugs.

Debate about drugs should focus on what forms of social disapproval and treatment are most effective, affordable and acceptable. Fortunately, Australia already has a highly successful model for addressing tobacco, a legally available drug, but which is a serious public health issue that causes many times more deaths and costs the public health system millions more than illicit drug use.

This is a success story

Through a combination of legal prohibitions and social disapproval (such as smoke-free pubs and restaurants), economic sanctions (the tax on tobacco products) and appropriate healthcare (including primary healthcare with stop smoking clinics and subsidised treatment, together with Medicare and the public hospital being equally available to smokers as to non-smokers), Australia has reduced the numbers of Australians who smoke. This is a success story which puts Australia at the forefront of global efforts to reduce the incidence of smoking-related disease — and the associated costs of care — and death. But when it comes to illicit drugs the picture is much more patchy.

The Reverend Harry Herbert, Executive Director of UnitingCare, the organisation which runs Sydney’s Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, recently lamented the breakdown of bipartisan support for the Centre and the consequent politicisation of the issue. He told a meeting of Australian Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform in December that ‘the Centre is a public health initiative and should be assessed as such, rather than as an opportunity for an ideological and political debate about drugs.’

Rev. Herbert went on to detail the Centre’s excellent work in preventing serious injury and death from overdoses (the treatment of which is another burden on already weak public health systems) as well as its system of referrals. In the year up to December 2005 the Centre referred 680 injecting drug users to a range of treatments, including detox programs (302), drug and alcohol counselling (69), methadone maintenance (117) and residential rehabilitation (52). The Centre recognises that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach does not work and so in each case sought to find appropriate solutions for the client.

But even these statistics do not reflect the more basic ways in which the Centre assists those with drug dependence issues, which therefore also helps to minimise the harms and costs borne by the community. Rev. Herbert read this letter written by a client of the Centre:

“I felt like killing myself”

“To Jake and Colette. Thank you for your help. The day I felt like killing myself you and Colette took time out of your bussie schedule [sic] and sat me down and talked to me and listen. I have never had anyone in my life that has done what you and Colette did. From that day my life had changed for the better. I am doing a reading and writing course at TAFE and look at life differently. Thank you again. It has been 21 weeks since I have used heroin.”

If this young man had been arrested and imprisoned for possessing and using heroin he would almost certainly have had access to the drug whilst in prison — the meeting of Parliamentarians heard that about 50% of inmates in NSW prisons reported injecting illegal drugs in prison, the majority of them sharing needles. Had he been gaoled the young man therefore would have had a good chance (4 in 10) of contracting hepatitis C as a result. Not only would he have been released with a charge for drug offences, which would rule him out in the minds of many employers, he would have had a medical condition that would have required ongoing treatment and would have added to the millions of dollars hepatitis C already costs the public health system.

In the case of this young person, as in many others, a proven, cost-effective and humane policy prevented a range of harms which would have cost both the young man and the community in the longer term.

We need to take a similar thoughtful approach to ‘party drugs’ cannabis and amphetamines – pointing out health risks, providing assistance to those whose drug use becomes problematic and focusing criminal sanctions on those who choose to become major suppliers, while treating personal use as primarily a health issue.

Overblown political rhetoric simply isn’t believable to the audience that really matters — those making choices to use or not use drugs.

We need to discuss and debate the issues surrounding illicit drugs and drug use, because they stretch across several areas of government and affect many groups in the community in different ways. But we will only find effective solutions if we all work to take partisan politics out of the debate.

Duncan Kerr SC is Labor MHR for Denison