TNAG-0925-FCO40-1143-Commonwealth-Parliamentary-Association-(CPA)-annual-conferen-1980 — Page 43

#C

Twenty-fifth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference

17

Panellists, in summing up, described the magnitude of the problem as such that all must get behind their governments to ensure that they arrived at a strategic development plan and ovided statutes to get things done. Whenever a project was undertaken, planning should ke the care and protection of the environment into consideration. A strategic development plan must be pursued vigorously.

The importance of taking steps to control the two forms of pollution, internal and external, was now recognised, the chairman said in closing the discussion. Commonwealth countries could deal with their internal pollution, but externally generated pollution required international control. The Law of the Sea Conference did not get anywhere, but that was not to say that unilateral or individual action would not work.

The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might not in itself be able to do anything specific about pollution, but could take up specific matters of pollution of the environment.

There was a high degree of knowledge about pollution control, but the information had not been collated. Perhaps the secretariat could do something about that. A study group that would discuss a science policy next year could include pollution control in its subject.

The CPA had the machinery to transmit knowledge and make proposals and could make representations for implementation at national or international levels.

PANEL C

THE DRUG TRAFFIC

Panel members: Mr J. H. Brown, MP, Australasian Regional Representative (Chairman)

Mr Bernard Chen, MP, Minister of State (Defence) Singapore

Hon. Andrew Little, MLA, Alberta

Panellists faced a vast area of conflicting ideas on attacking the drug traffic problem. Was it solely the concern of the criminal justice system? Would different punishments work? Was it a medical problem, and should abusers be treated as sick people? Would it be necessary to restructure the entire education system and, indeed, social, economic, and political systems so that drug addiction as an escape from the harsh realities of life became unnecessary before the traffic was eliminated?

There were really three fundamental aspects to the problem: why was there a demand for drugs; how could trafficking be stopped; and how could rehabilitation be effected?

Delegates had few answers to the first. High-powered committees constantly examined the physiological, biological, and clinical effects of drug taking but few, if any, sociological researchers were studying the reason for people's need for drugs, what type of people they were, rehabilitation, or how to prevent addiction in the first place.

The will of society itself was all that could reduce the demand for drugs, and the great battlefields were in the homes and schools, some delegates stated; the attitude of parents and teachers was the key factor.

As the profits of private corporations that made drugs legally could be as high as 1,500 percent in Canada, and Britain paid £348 million for pharmaceutical products-half as much again as the total cost of its general practitioner service-the view was put that if all profits from such concerns went to the State, abuse, as distinct from use of drugs from that source, could be lessened considerably.

International action to wipe out the growing of drugs as a crop was sought by many, although it was pointed out that when thousands of Turkish farmers had been persuaded to sow grain instead of poppies, at a cost of $16 million to the United States, the project failed because the farmers' income from grain was less than from opium poppies. Prohibiting cultivation made drugs scarcer, therefore more costly, and therefore encouraged more associated crime.

The United Nations Committee for Drug Abuse Control was an agency that could do more, but it was necessary to "put their money where their mouths were" if such