Lessons for N.Z. in overseas reports on drug abuses

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32676, 4 August 1971, Page 15

Lessons for N.Z. in overseas reports on drug abuses

(By the Rev.

P. D. RAMSAY)

Read a nation’s drug abuse report and you learn a great deal abouL the government in power—its sincerity, skill and genuine social concern. The terms of reference, the personnel chosen for the task, even the initial decision to have an inquiry, are significant disclosures.

Since every affluent country is facing the same problem literature comparisons are in order. In the last year and a half New Zealand, Can-i ada and Australia have! “had a stab at it.” In terms of performance, as I I judge, we come a poor third.

For one thing, the first report of the Board of Health’s Committee on Drug Dependency and Drug Abuse in New Zealand is written obscurely. Perhaps, as one reviewer suggested soon after it was released in February, 1970, it was a rushed effort planned to be published before the last general election. If there is anything in the thought the longpromised and much-delayed second report could give credence to the theory for we shall not see it before mid--1972.

I cannot accept the implied motive, for there is little in the report to enhance the Government’s reputation. At the same time there is little required of the Government in the First Report’s recommendations therein its second weakness. A third fault to my mind was the manner of tackling the task. The Minister of Health wrote to the secretary of the Board of Health, naming a chairman and the plan of membership, which was of course followed. With only the church representative unrelated to Government (either directly or by reason of financial aid) it was safe enough to predict the outcome: an “official” line with no dissentient view, and few “teeth” of criticism or positive proposal. Canadian report Canada, in half the time that was taken here (11 months compared with 22) produced a “cracker”; authoritative pharmacological and legal aspects to satisfy the most demanding purist, yet down where the concerned layman lives and struggles with the drug abuse problem. Is it accidental that this eminently readable paperback (335 pages) without a wasted word and considerable penetration was written by non-Govemment personnel?

Five people compared with our 10? A private lawyer rather than a public service medico as chairman? Canada had neither police nor church represented, only one medical man, and (unlike us) a social worker. Although the “Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs” (the LeDain Report) has been available in our country over a year it is only now that some of our social leaders are coming to an appreciation of its worth. The extent and patterns of non-medical drug use apply to Canada, of course, but the descriptive range of the popularlyabused drugs and their effects, and the causes of nonmedical drug use, are valuable to us and immediately applicable here. It is splendid value at $2 (our First Report $1.30, Government Bookshops).

Later in time, and even better value for your dollar is the report from Australia’s Senate Select Committee, “Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse." It is an object lesson to our Board of Health’s committee in lay-out, brevity and scope. Its succinct language gets to the heart of the matter. It pulls no punches in its recommendations and demands. In all these ways—and more—it could assist our second report to the levels of competence and comprehensiveness. What, then, is Australia’s secret?

Senate inquiry The politicians decided that a matter so socially serious and nation-wide called for nothing less than do-it-yourself action. No cushion-

ing and camouflage, pigeonholing and passing the buck of known industry sales to ad hoc committees, commissions and the like. They shouldered the burden knowing as responsible legislators j that drug abuse control was I their own. They made a firstI rate job of their self-imposed task. I Two differences from the New Zealand approach stand 'out: instead of leaving it to a Government department to sort out, or leaving the initiative a little precarious, dependent upon the party in power, the Senate dived in at the deep end; Four senators appointed by the Prime Minister, three by the Leader of the Opposition, and one by the leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party. The second difference from ourselves was knowing when to stop.

Friends, not critics As a Senate Select Committee they knew, as practical politicians, that their job was a terminating one. Though the problem would be continuing, probably increasing in seriousness before social conditions improved, they had to “wrap it up” in reasonable time. So they did. The temptation under our present system, to which the committee succumbed in some specifics, is that "sticky” questions can be shelved with a promise of inclusion in the next report —or the one after that. “We’ll lay off cigarettes—too inflammable.” “Alcohol isn’t a drug in the public mind—that lets us off the hook.” “We have nothing to do with Government policy or finance.” “Our job is not the formulation of public opinion,” or, “We are not a body competent to decide on the role of law.”

The Government, in appointing a committee or commission to inquire into drug abuse, will choose from its friends, not its critics. Those appointed will be as pleasing and as undemanding as they can be. Friends are like that. It may not be the best way of getting things done—as Australia indicates. What ad hoc committee would be bold enough to recommend an immediate grant of ssm for the provision of facilities and staff for treatment and rehabilitation services?

The Senators have gone further: They urge provision by Commonwealth Government of funds quite separate from those already established under National Health and the Medical Research Council for the stimulation of research into drug abuse. Even as our Board of Health Committee was composing the first report, Queen Mary Hospital, Hanmer Springs, was under a cloud and Kingseat and Oakley hospitals put up their “house full” signs to limit the intake of alcoholics. Although the Government has received s44m a year in direct liquor taxation the little research done to date has relied on grants from the licensing fund profits. The Board of Health committee’s one recommendation on research (notably cannabis) was a vague programme without reference to funds. Recently the New Zealand Medical Research Council has moved in this matter, presumably without additional finance as in Australia. The Senate Select Committee faced the broad issues of drug abuse forthrightly. From the evidence, in terms of numbers of persons involved, they set out the order of drugs abused in Australia: alcohol top of the list, then tobacco, barbiturates, bromureides, minor analgesics, cannabis, amphetamines, opiate narcotics and lastly, LSD.

Minor analgesics Minor analgesics are the aspirin type drugs, and evidence was before the Select Committee of research which strongly indicated the continued and excessive use of aspirin as a possible cause of kidney disease. An analysis shows the consumption aver-

age of 0.63 tablets a person a day or 2904 million tablets a year rolling down Australian throats. New Zealand has no warrant for feeling unduly virtuous regarding this form of drug taking. But our Board of Health committee, concentrating on the illicit, does not “tell it the way it is” with the humble aspirin. My clue is World Health Organisation figures for the period 1961-65, placing' us fifth highest in the world (Australia third) with 8481 therapeutic doses per 1000 inhabitants.

A strange omission from ' the First Report, which I ' hope the Board of Health , committee rectifies next : year, is the advertising of ' drugs. True, there is a section on newspaper treatment of drug news and articles on drugs which were “with remarkably few exceptions, factual and informative" and "the editorials, though few in number, were responsible in tone.” Also, a promise was made in the First Report that radio and television coverage would be studied in 1970. Of this survey we have heard nothing. Australia goes much further. The Senate committee recommends that the granting of taxation concessions for drug advertising should be discontinued, believing that present day methods of advertising are not in the public interest. “So much evidence was C laced before the Committee y expert witnesses on the harmful influence that present day advertising can exert in relation to drugs that serious concern must be expressed at the situation. Advertising costs Figures given on advertising expenditure relate only to the cost of time on radio and television and space in newspaper advertising. They do not include advertising agency and production costs. For 1968 these limited costs exceeded $11,690,000 for smoking accessories, $6,718,000 for pharmaceuticals (only those drugs available without medical prescription) and $4,211,000 for liquor, so business go-getters are certainly keeping the drug culture from dying out. The Senate report made a further recommendation that "The Commonwealth Department of Health should impose greater restriction on the content of TV and radio

i drug advertising. If existing t legislation is inadequate for their purpose it should be ' amended.’’ Straight talking by legislators to their own > specialist world of power. , Any student of drug . reports these days turns swiftly to the chapter on • cannabis. How do Austra- , liens handle this new social , drug? Like our Board of . Health committee and ’ Canada’s LeDain Commis- ' sion, there is no reconunen--1 dation of immediate legalisa- ! tion. “The Committee i believes that scientific evi--1 dence is not yet sufficiently ■ conclusive to warrant, with 1 safety to the public, the removal of existing restric* ! tions on the use of any can--1 nabis derivatives.” i Treatment survey Feet-on-the-ground politi- ' cians could hardly advise otherwise when in October last year a Gallup Poll in j all states revealed 84 per . cent of Australians opposed such a step. The Senate committee displayed the importance of marijuana on the current drug scene by its tabling of 14 recommendations, one of which recommends further research. Another recommendation, which our Government would be well advised to follow, is the removal of marijuana from the narcotics schedule and put it where it belongs —in the schedule of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In the matter of treatment our Board of Health’s First Report was concerned mainly with a survey of existing facilities—their character, extent, and suitability for drug dependents and abusers of different types. “It has not attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of their present functioning, which is a separate issue and not within the Committee’s competence.” Rehabilitation is omitted. Australian Senators faced up to both issues. They recognised that these desirable forms of treatment and rehabilitation would be costly. 1 “Nevertheless, the Commit- 1 tee believes for the well-! being of the community as a whole the problem must be ! faced and acted upon quickly.” Their recommendation was an immediate grant of ssm and amounts of con-' tinuing aid to be reviewed 1 annually with a Common- 1 wealth/State dollar for dollar ' grant. I hope such trans- 1 Tasman wisdom will rub off i on our leaders. ~ ■ ‘