It is too soon to evaluate the effects on those city communities ravaged by drug abuse of the recommendations issued by the Ministerial task force in its first report last October. The task force itself offers, in its second report published yesterday, an outline of what it sees as progress made, but this is largely an outline of work in progress or work proposed. It will be some time before an objective analysis can reveal the effectiveness of what has been started.
It has been said before that there is no single or simple answer or action which can resolve the drugs crisis. The task force is to be commended on the breadth of its vision in identifying as many targets as it has. Its first report focused primarily on the problem of heroin addiction and its establishment of drugs teams at central government level and its support of local task forces were both to be welcomed. Its determination of resources to support these activities seemed somewhat small and will surely need to increase, but maybe there was wisdom in starting out small so that an expansion of resources could be directed at those parts of a complex programme most likely, on the basis of experience, to be most effective.
The second report recommends the establishment of a youth development fund, to be financed jointly by the Exchequer and by corporate sources, with an estimated £20 million coming from the Exchequer. In addition, the Government would agree that a sum equivalent to that seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau would be subscribed to the war against drugs (although this appears in a press release rather than in the report itself). There is some kind of rough justice in the idea that assets accumulated by major criminals should be reinvested by the State in efforts to restore to social and physical health those communities that have been torn apart by the activities of the criminals.
This new report also looks at the use of so called soft drugs which are increasingly used more widely than in the city communities ravaged by heroin abuse. For these it recommends the inclusion of "harm reduction" information programmes among other preventive strategies. Experience in other countries suggests that there is merit in this recommendation.
The task force also wants sporting facilities developed to help divert young people from drugs usage. There is merit in this also, but it should be noted that not all young people want to involve themselves actively in sport, either at competitive level or in recreational noncompetitive activities. There can be diversionary activities for the minds as well as the bodies of those who may be tempted to take drugs.
There is, clearly, a long way to go before the drugs problem can be eliminated by a coherent and comprehensive programme. And there is certainly an appropriate air of unfinished business in this second report of the task force, not least with its recommendation that an expert group be established to examine current containment and treatment practices, specifically in relation to Mountjoy jail vis a vis practices in other institutions. Likewise, the recommendation that an advisory body be set up to examine the causes, effects and trends of drug abuse and the effectiveness of different methods of treatment indicates that more needs to be done. But so far, so good.