Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4183 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
The booklet goes on to say that Sweden's drug policy is distinguished by its breadth and depth. Their municipalities and county councils and virtually all of their national authorities are, within their various fields, actively involved in drug control measures. Drug prevention measures have high priority within the police, customs, the public prosecution service, the prison and probation service, social services, schools and various leisure activities. To this can be added all the voluntary organisations and mass movements which, through their information activities and mobilisation of public opinion, help to prevent the spread of drugs in Sweden. Why on earth can we not do that here? Sweden has a population of nine million, but it seems that the number of addicts there probably is not very different from what we have in the ACT.
I will not go through the Swedish policy in any detail. Someone who goes into a remand centre is automatically subject to detoxification treatment. There is probably a lot more that we can do as a nation in terms of rehabilitating drug offenders than we are doing now. I will, however, quote the conclusion arrived at in the booklet. It makes a very pertinent point which applies not only to their society but also to ours. (Extension of time granted) The conclusion appears on page 32 of the booklet provided by the embassy, and reads:
Drug abuse is dependent on supply and demand. If drugs are readily available and society takes a permissive attitude, the number of persons trying drugs will increase. In other words, even people in a favourable social and psychological situation will come to use drugs. If, on the other hand, drugs are very difficult to come by and there is a danger of being arrested, the number of people trying drugs will be reduced to those who, for psychological and social reasons, occupy a more definite risk zone. If, moreover, society can bring measures of support and treatment to this group in a vulnerable situation, it is very likely that drug abuse can be kept down.
Thus the basic principle of drug policy is the duty of society to intervene - against drug trafficking in public places, by supporting young persons who are experimenting with drugs, and by offering treatment to those whose drug abuse is destroying them.
People might have real difficulty disputing any of that because not only is it about attacking the source of supply, but also it is about the means of supporting people who need that actual support, and that is of crucial importance. We have some very good measures here. I was glad to hear what Ms Tucker said about some of the steps that we are taking. But I think that there is a lot more that we as a nation could be doing to overcome this very real problem. In terms of the approaches we take to stop the use of drugs in our society and to assist addicts, there is a lot we need to do at the state level and, especially, the Commonwealth level.
Internationally there is a real problem, too. There has been an increase in production. A concerted international approach is needed as well. Quite clearly, there are a number of drug-producing areas in the world. They are doing so because of the profit. There may well be steps that the United Nations could take, perhaps led by the United States, which is one of the greatest sufferers in terms of illicit drug use because of its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .