❓ The WA Government rejects a proposal to register drug addicts and supply them with government-procured heroin, arguing it won't eradicate the black market or solve addiction problems, and that existing programs are more effective.
AnsweredQoN 120Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the recent crime forum held in Busselton. What is the Government's response to the claim that registering drug addicts and supplying them with government-procured heroin will protect the lives of young users, eradicate the black market for heroin and reduce the death toll from heroin overdose? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. Drug abuse is a very difficult and complex problem. It is understandable, particularly when parents discover they have a child who is addicted to drugs, that they look for a quick fix - some sort of magic and very quick solution. It is also quite understandable that many people would say that if, in controlled circumstances, we supplied people with a pure form of drug that was non-toxic, the harm they would do to themselves, particularly the possibility of overdose, would be significantly reduced. The harm minimisation argument goes further than that, but that is it in a nutshell. It does not work. I ask the member to consider this logic: If we tried to register everybody who uses heroin, whether they are people who have been dependent for some time, occasional users or those who want to experiment, we would never be able to do so, because we would never be able to capture them all. If we then tried to give them heroin in some form or other, does the member seriously think that those engaged in the illegal trade would go off and do something else and stop trying to deal in drugs? They would not. Why would they do that? They would not do that because they make a monumental amount of money pushing heroin onto people. It would not do away with the illegal drug trade. We may or may not save people's lives and/or health. We can do that anyway with other programs. For example, the statewide methadone program, which uses trained doctors and pharmacists, achieves much the same end for those people on opiates who want to begin the process of recovering from their addictions. There are many other ways of achieving this end, including the use of naltrexone and other pharmacotherapies, and detoxification and going cold turkey. There are many ways of dealing with the problem, but supplying heroin to people who are using it, whether they are dependent, occasional or experimental users, will not solve the problem for anybody. Social support of people who are using opiates and helping them with other forms of treatment will solve the problem, together with good and rigorous policing and the use of many other programs. That is the drug strategy the Government has been running for four-and-a-half to five years, and it is effective.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.