I have been very interested in the media reaction to the "free heroin" trials which are about to be started by the ACT government. The media have vilified it, drawn cartoons about it, suggested that the politicians involved had made the decisions for nefarious purposes, involved the social services lobby by implying that the cost of the trials would mean that there would be lesser monies around for old age pensioners, single mums and the like and in general rubbished the whole idea as an unworkable waste of taxpayers money.

The media reaction on the face of it appears irrational.

The hypothesis behind the trial works on a three-fold basis - with the ultimate aim of assessing whether or not heroin should be "legally" available: If heroin were to be legally buyable - from (say) chemists then

1. the heroin would be "clean" and not mixed with "extenders" which can make the mixture poisonous.
2. The price would be "normal" i.e. without the extra markups that come about as a result of its illicit traffic and the regular restraint of demand - naturally if the price were normal then addicts wouldn't have to moonlight as thieves and muggers to enable themselves to pay for a fix.
3. If the stuff was legal the criminal element would be entirely removed from the equation - the benefits of the latter are obvious - not only less police involvement but ultimately there will be nobody selling heroin to new addicts i.e. our children. The marketing to children is of course based on the need of the older already-addicted child to earn enough money to pay for his own habit - driven by the criminal higher up the drug distribution chain who is prepared to issue "freebies" to get the kids hooked.

When this last marketing effort is removed then there has to be hope that the heroin (or any other opiate - cocaine, marijuana, etc) cycle will slowly lose momentum. After all what kid will willingly stick a needle in his arm if he is driven by peer (the pusher) pressure?

There are of course arguments against the trials and ultimate goals. Some of these are valid and some not.

The interesting point is that everybody that is rational and logical seems to agree that there is some merit to the trial yet the media seem hell-bent on destroying the trial - before it gets off the ground.

In trying to establish why I thought about the drug business as a whole.

Anecdotal evidence appears to indicate that the illicit drug industry is one of the worlds major industries with sales and profits in the multi-billion dollar league.

The companies and/or people behind the trade are not the unshaven louts in scruffy jeans hanging around Kings Cross, nor are they the slick Asian or Lebanese 30 year-olds driving purple Porsches. They are not even the reputed and well-known Mr Bigs who hang around Sydney and Melbourne's racetracks and are referred to by the media as "colourful racing identities".

They have to be major companies or individuals - entities that can control the billions of dollars that are generated by the industry. They have to be major enough to have vast businesses that can be used to whitewash the money - illicit drugs are not paid for with cheques, TTs or even credit cards.

If one assumes that these individuals, groups of individuals or companies want to keep trading then their ultimate aim has to be to maintain the status quo.

If the sale of narcotic drugs was to be legal then a whole industry would disappear for the companies. Sure they would be left with the industries that have been financed by the drug trade in the first place but these would never compete with the margins or cash flow of the drugs.

This means that the drug trials are a direct threat to their industry as a whole. In much the same way as the dairy industry fought against the introduction of margarine (back in the late 1960s), the Egg Board industry fought the cholesterol war and the Beef Industry took on the health nuts the Drug Industry has to fight back. The Margarine industry - spearhead by Dick Crebbin of Marrickville Margarine - took out newspaper ads, TV ads and even had billboards. The Egg Board developed a low-cholesterol egg and distributed cookbooks. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation had research done that proved conclusively that "lean beef" had no more cholesterol, fat or anything else than a dry lettuce leaf (sic).

The Drug Industry will ultimately use similar methods to protect their turf. They will use the churches - of all denominations - to argue to their congregations about the dangers of free heroin or legal drugs, they will use the media to beat up stories and they will use PR companies to plant interesting life-style stories of junkies who have overcome their habit but who are worried that if the stuff ever becomes legal that they won't be able to resist...

In other words they will behave exactly as a normal industry does to protect their turf. In this case the turf is probably larger and more lucrative than most so the efforts to protect might be more strenuous than is usual.

I have no suggestions or comments other than to express the hope that the wider community realises that "turf protection" may be taking place whenever they read or hear criticism about "free heroin" trials, the decriminalisation of marijuana or the legalisation of narcotics.

JK

Subject: Dreaded League of Rights

Dear Sir,

for the first time since visiting your site daily I have to disagree with you.

Out of curiosity I obtained all the weekly bulletins and monthly newsletters of the League of Rights for the past 4 years, and I challenge anybody to find anything that is in any way 'extreme', 'racist', or for that matter 'right wing' in any of it. I even went to some of their seminars and heard nothing there which could be so described either. My assessment (and it was not hastily formed) was that the League is a religious, conservative, patriotic organisation, whose only real crime is that it is unafraid to criticise any group, of whatever ethnicity, which threatens Australia as an independent and free nation. You might find you have been influenced by the same media smear techniques now leveled at Pauline Hanson, but which have been used against the League for a lot longer period.

I am also reliably informed that the only difference between the first and second editions of Pauline Hanson's book lies in the deletion of one small section on p.136, which was a quote from a book by Eric Rolls called "Sojourners", and the only reason it was deleted was that the author withheld permission to quote from it after the first edition of "The Truth" had already come out. The quote was deleted to avoid a potential action for breach of copyright. Everything else is the same. The so-called 'unauthorised editing' of material on cannibalism is a load of rubbish.

Where the misinformation is coming from is an interesting question, but since the New Left are obviously failing to stop the nationalist cause by lies and violence from the outside, they might now be resorting to the creation of dissension from within. We must be careful not to help them.

The Code of Conduct is designed to let us all know the values which guide us in our daily business activities. This year, the booklet has been reissued to incorporate:

* statement of our COMPANY VALUES; and
* an ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE which all Executive and Manager grades will sign and forward to their next level of management. All offshore staff and onshore staff whose jobs are related to offshore business activities must also sign the Acknowledgment and return it to their immediate supervisor. All other employees of the Company are invited and encouraged to sign and return the Acknowledgment to their immediate supervisor.

The Statement of Values was originally adopted by the Senior Management Team in July 1992. It is timely and appropriate that these values are explicitly adopted by all employees as an initial set of Company Values.

Telstra's reputation for honesty, integrity, excellence and fairness is one of its most important assets, and the highest standards should govern all our actions. Decisions made within the Company should honour the spirit and letter of applicable laws, both within Australia and in our joint ventures with out overseas partners. To this end, business will be conducted honestly and ethically, with out best skills and judgements, for the benefit of our customers, our fellow workers, the Company and the country as a whole.

We should ensure that we are proud of what we stand for individually and as an organisation. No employee should ever feel that his or her conduct could not survive the test of public scrutiny.

I urge you to read and understand the statement of Our Company Values and Our Code of Conduct which has been prepared to assist and protect you. This booklet will provide guidance, support and protection in the event that you are concerned about the course of action you should follow in any particular situation. As the CEO, I will be doing my best to always abide by both the Company Values Statement and the Code of Conduct, and I look to you all, whatever your position in the Company, to do the same.

This booklet is also to be adopted by all of Telstra's wholly-owned subsidiaries and is to govern the conduct of the employees of these companies. In addition, Telstra will use its best efforts to encourage its other subsidiaries to also adopt the Values and Code of Conduct.

Frank Blount

Chief Executive Officer July 1996

_____________________________________________________________________

IMPROPER INFLUENCE

No pressure is to be put on employees to influence their personal preferences in private or political matters. Further, no approval or disapproval should be shown by anyone in their Company role, of an employee's private or political preferences or activities.

POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Our Company must not be used to support a political party, a member of a party, or an independent politician, either in Australia or overseas. When acting on the Company's behalf, no action should be made which might be seen as assisting a political party, politician or political candidate. However, this does not include normal hospitality when conducting business. In offshore countries, proposals for the giving of political support or a donation by a joint venture in which the Company participates should be submitted to the GMD having overall responsibility for the Company's international business activities.

____________________________________________________________________________________