Pubdate: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 Date: 08/16/1998 Source: Canberra Times (Australia) Author: Peter Watney Website: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/ ALMOST a decade ago Michael Moore initiated a study by the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH) into a heroin trial. The Legislative Assembly thought the situation sufficiently serious to support the initiative. Three years ago a spate of heroin deaths prompted the formation of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, a group largely made up of respectable hard working people who had lost loved ones to the curse of heroin and who refuted the popular image of the heroin addict. They knew the quality of the people they had lost and knew that the demon that had killed them was a sickness and that they were not criminal scum. Two and a half years ago the Legislative Assembly approved the detailed proposals and carefully worked out protocols for a trial, that would enable clinical quality heroin to be injected in safe surroundings, under medically qualified supervision, by carefully selected local addicts, and with records of the medical and social outcomes to be made available to the world. Two years ago the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy failed to approve the trial, but decided to leave it on the table for the 1997 meeting of the Council. One year ago the Ministerial Council with federal Cabinet approval had authorised a trial in accordance with the NCEPH protocols only to have the trial vetoed a week later by the Prime Minister immediately on his return to duty from a spell in hospital. He demanded more of the same old zero tolerance, ineffective, law and order campaign and authorised the odd few extra millions to execute it. Today the situation is predictably worse, so all that Michael Moore is able to attempt is the clinical surroundings and trained supervision without the clinical quality heroin or the research findings that the trial would have provided. And even that is better than nothing, provided the Nation's intellectually challenged leadership does not again exercise its veto. Peter Watney, Holt