Page 103 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
people on the program does not mean that they are off drugs, as some people might imagine. It means that they are on a drug which is somewhat easier to control than other drugs, where you can - as I think someone said - stabilise the lifestyles of people on that program.
What disappoints me about methadone is that it does not result, to the degree that I would like to see, in people getting off drugs altogether, or getting onto acceptably low level drugs, perhaps. The level of complete abstinence and considerable reduction is very low. It might stabilise chaotic lifestyles, as Mr Moore indicated; but I would really like, ideally, to see a somewhat better achievement level than we get with methadone. I acknowledge that it is an important program. We cannot do without it for the time being and I think that the motion Mr Moore has put forward is a valid call on this Government to honour a promise it made to the community last year.
I also want to point out, in fairness, Madam Speaker, that Mr Berry's comments on pharmacists are somewhat undeserved. Mr Berry seems to have attacked the role that the pharmacists might play in this program. I want to indicate that no pharmacist in this community really wants to take part in a heroin trial, or a methadone program, for that matter. None of them want to do it, because no pharmacist really wants to have drug addicts coming into his or her shop to get their dose. They do it because they believe that there is a public interest to be served by doing that. That is why they are involved in it.
The average pharmacist, I am told, makes about $2 per dose out of that kind of arrangement. No-one is going to get rich on a $2 dose, from having people coming in to get hits in the shop.
Mrs Grassby: You get them in for one thing and you sell them two others.
MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps they can sell them some hair spray or something at the same time, Madam Speaker; I do not know. The fact of life is that it is not going to be a matter of great profit to any pharmacist. They are involved in this process because they believe that it is important for our community to tackle the problem of drugs. That is why they are involved in it. I support their involvement in the program and I want to see this Minister produce the hard facts about the program that he promised to the community some time ago.
MRS CARNELL (12.12): Speaking very quickly to the amendment, I am concerned about the amendment. Leaving out the word "potential" seems to bring us back to our 107 current clients on the system. The potential clients that we are talking about are those other 93, or possibly more, that need to be on the program, that need to be given an opportunity to get onto our program. Quite honestly, at the moment the only sure way of getting onto the program quickly is to make sure that you become HIV positive, and that really has to be a problem - that that is the only way you get onto it the same day. If that is the way we are going to run a public health program in the ACT, we have real problems.
The comments that you made about pharmacists were interesting. Pharmacists are trained to dispense all sorts of medication to the public on a more general basis. Methadone is just another one. There are six pharmacists who have indicated that they would be willing to be part of this program. There is one in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .