THE RIGHT DECISION ON INJECTION HOUSES

THE argument in favor of establishing supervised injection houses for heroin users, which the Victorian Government yesterday announced it intends to do, is simple and compelling.  The existing prohibition and enforcement strategies have failed to stem, let alone stop, the flow of heroin to Australia's streets.

According to an issues paper released by the Government's Drug Policy Expert Committee, a gram of heroin, which three years ago would have sold for $600, can now be bought for $25.  And while prices have dropped, the purity levels of what is sold have risen, from 30 per cent to 70 per cent.  That is the supply side; and, as those who work in the hard-pressed treatment and rehabilitation services for users have repeatedly testified, it has not been possible to lower the demand for heroin significantly either.

It is evident even from a casual stroll along Russell Street and adjacent areas of Melbourne that people continue to buy this illegal drug openly, and to inject it in circumstances that can too easily result in their deaths.

The heroin problem is now so acute that what matters most is reducing the growing number of heroin-related deaths, which the committee estimates will have reached 500 a year in Australia by 2005.  That is why The Age has long urged that it is time to test alternatives to the prohibitionist approach, including the use of supervised injection houses.

The government has accepted a proposal from the Drug Expert Policy Committee, chaired by Dr David Penington, for a trial of five injection houses for adults, in the city, St Kilda, Footscray, Springvale and Fitzroy-Collingwood.  Under the proposal the facilities would only be established with the consent of local councils, and could not be located near schools, kindergartens or residential areas.

The latter condition will perhaps be more easily stated than achieved: in suburbs such as St Kilda and Footscray, residential streets are only a couple of minutes' walk from the areas where heroin is sold, and locating an injecting house too far from these might not be practicable.  There is likely to be opposition from residents and traders groups, and some people who have previously supported injection houses in principle may decide that the principle does not require them to live or work near one.  It must be hoped that the councils concerned will not be swayed by such reasoning.

The not-in-my-backyard argument may be justified when people are being asked to accept something that is not already in their backyard, such as a toxic waste dump.  But heroin dealing and its related problems, including deaths from overdoses, are not being imposed on the traders and residents of inner Melbourne; these things already happen there.

The trial of supervised injection houses offers a chance of reducing some of the risks the heroin trade poses to users and to those who share the streets with them.  It is not a chance the state can afford to pass up.