Can drug users deliver an honest debate?

When Premier Morris Iemma was asked about Andrew Johns drug taking he went for the old law and order approach

, reminding everyone that if Johns had been caught in NSW he may have faced criminal charges. Although technically that could happen, the fact is that by far the majority of people picked up in NSW with one ecstasy tab are given a warning by the police, or they may end up in a rehabilitation program.

 

It was disappointing that the Premier stuck with his out-of-touch message on drugs. Hopefully he might have heard and read the flood of comments on talkback radio and in the media, mostly expressing concern for Johns well-being and supporting his decision to speak publicly.

 

Certainly many people are expressing annoyance and disappointment with Johns, but the words that dominate this debate are honesty and compassion.

 

Prime Minister John Howard reiterated the views he expressed when it was alleged that top Australian Rules player Ben Cousins was an ice user. The Prime Minister emphasised the need for support. Commenting on Johns drug taking he

said "I hope the Knights community rallies around him and helps him."

 

Fortunately Johns has a strong support network of family and friends, and excellent medical assistance.

 

But what about all the people taking drugs who are not public figures? Would Howard and other commentators be so supportive if an Aboriginal youth from a remote community or an unemployed labourer revealed their decade of drug taking? The events of the past few days have highlighted the urgent need for an honest debate on drug use in Australia.

 

Lisa Pryor, a Sydney Morning Herald columnist, has called for such a debate, offering a reality check to anyone who might still be surprised that footballers and lots of other people take drugs. Her words

might alarm some but they need to be read:

 

When is this stupidity going to stop? When are we going to stop dealing in hyperbole and trickery and have an adult debate about drugs? A debate that is not dominated by what-will-the-kiddies-think lies? My generation grew up with plenty of shocking warnings about druggies and drug pushers and plenty of us take drugs because we know those warnings were a complete crock.

 

Peter Fitzsimons wrote along similar lines

and reminded all of us that we don't own Johns.

 

It must have been an extraordinary few days for Johns but he and his family have already acknowledged that there is a big plus in what has happened.

 

Hopefully the same can be said about the drug debate, and that the public discourse will be energised by recent events. Its a debate that has been far from honest. Conservative politicians from both the Coalition and Labor parties have misused the drugs debate at election time to promote a sense of fear in the community and to misrepresent the Greens position in order to damage our vote.

 

The Greens drugs policy

emphasises harm reduction and reflects the approach of many health professionals. We support criminal penalties for importers, manufacturers and suppliers of drugs; and education and rehabilitation programs for people who use drugs. Much of what we advocate is now in place in many states, but come election time the conservative politicians forget about their own harm reduction programs and run the big scare campaign about the Greens drugs policy.

 

In the 2007 NSW state election Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan stole Greens how-to-vote cards and handed them out, until stopped by police, while shouting out, If you want to decriminalise drugs for your children, vote Green. (The Sunday Telegraph report

reasonable coverage to the incident, and check out the photo of the Senator with the stolen Greens how-to-vote cards!)

 

These incidents are par for the Greens election course. In 2003, Howard distorted

the Greens drugs policy in an attempt to argue that Labor should not preference the Greens.

 

The media and party-political lies and distortion of the Greens drugs policy highlights how difficult it will be to have an honest debate.

 

But at least thanks to Johns revelations the debate is off and running. The chance of this debate producing useful, rational results could well rest with our societys many drug users speaking out.

 

Lisa Pryor's column

nails the problem: As a generation, we passively accept that it [drug use] is illegal. We passively accept that occasionally someone we know will be caught and have their career destroyed. We are willing to see friends get criminal records, see girls such as the young dance teacher Annabel Catt die because they mistakenly take strange substances passed off as ecstasy. We see public figures who are caught have their reputations besmirched and we say nothing.

 

No one is willing to stand up and admit to it because the risks are so high. The risks are high precisely because so many recreational drug users are leading normal lives with serious jobs that they don't want to put at risk. They are not radicals. They have families they don't want to embarrass.

 

This timidity is pretty inexcusable when you think of what people have been willing to stand up for in the name of ending hypocrisy. Think of activists in the 1970s who spoke out against laws banning gay sex because honesty and principles counted. It is time to end the lies and start having an honest debate about drugs.

 

Pryor adds my generation has been too gutless. But we have a chance now the debate is happening. I hope Pryors generation and all those regular people with normal lives who take drugs will now speak out.

 

We need a real, honest debate. Otherwise we will have more gratuitous speeches from politicians and sanctimonious editorials about the shame of it all; and then the hand-wringers will go off to the pub to further condemn the drug users while partaking of their own drug of choice.