While it was acknowledged that in some instances punitive sanctions for drug offences could act as a deterrent for some users, the majority view was that prohibition remained fundamentally flawed in its application. It was perceived that prohibition often impeded substantial moves towards rehabilitation and instead merely exacerbated existing social, health and financial problems. Legalisation and decriminalisation of drugs were regarded as solutions. Regulation of supply - which would occur as a result of legalisation - was perceived as having certain 'spin-off' effects. Such effects could include removing the stigma associated with drug use, reducing negative activities of illegal markets, stabilising quality of supply and allowing users to focus on their own life, health and family needs in a more positive and less chaotic way.

The issues of choice and personal liberty were also raised. The general view was that partial prohibition, while seen by some as a step in the right direction, was likely to have only limited success. Drugs would still be purchased via illegal markets, again exposing users to the dangers of variable supply, quality and associated criminal activity. Police discretion was also seen as a problem under partial prohibition, with many users feeling discriminated against in contrast to more affluent, well-presented members of the community.

While it was recognised that some police generally understood the reality of drug use, there was an overriding concern that many did not. Concern was also raised over the effect on the community of police drug blitzes and police mistreatment. While the importance of an effective police presence in the community was acknowledged, it was seen as critical that police understand the nuances, people and culture of the community they are policing.

Traders, residents and users considered that programs designed to link offenders with housing, counselling, legal and/or other services would be more effective than measures designed to lock up offenders. Increasing government funding for support programs, such as programs linking arrestees with community workers, was seen as a positive step.

Most participants saw that the court system, when dealing with drug offenders, failed to recognise the nature of addiction and to address the underlying causes of criminal activity. Participants emphasised the need for the courts to make rehabilitation the primary focus when sentencing offenders, and advocated a holistic, flexible and responsive approach to rehabilitation.

While it was acknowledged that criminal behaviour which impacted on third parties could not go unchecked, participants questioned whether existing court programs, such as mandatory treatment programs, were successful in preventing such behaviour. Key themes from the discussion included the need to tailor rehabilitation programs to specific needs, to set realistic goals with respect to rehabilitation, to involve offenders in setting up their own treatment programs and to recognise the risk of relapse. It was also noted that any rehabilitation efforts needed to be adequately supported by local services and resources, which at present are critically under-resourced and have substantial waiting lists. Further funding for such support services is therefore critical, in order that courts may link drug offenders with effective rehabilitation programs.

Finally, an overriding message that came out of the focus groups was the need for further discussion, consultation and an opportunity for the community to become involved in the development of future programs, particularly court diversion programs. It was emphasised that the community can offer insights and perspectives into the issues surrounding drug use, policing and the application of drug laws in this state.

Participants agreed that their enthusiasm and commitment should be harnessed in order to help steer the decision-making process in these areas.

In order to begin the pursuit of an effective rehabilitation campaign one needs to understand the realities of drug addiction. An important starting point is to recognise that drug users cannot be stereotyped. Individuals take drugs for various reasons. For some it is a clear-cut case of addiction, for others the addiction may mask underlying social issues. Given the diversity of situations and varying levels of addiction, it is essential that rehabilitation programs and social support schemes cater to the individual rather than adopt a uniform approach. Both sentencing and rehabilitation programs need to appreciate that relapse is common in the recovery process and does not necessarily result in failure. The varying nature of addiction should allow for the rehabilitation process to be defined by the individual drug user.

Our research indicates that rehabilitation, like addiction itself, varies in the form it may take. For some a successful rehabilitation may be a complete withdrawal; for others, it may be a mere reduction of use. Furthermore, the transient and chaotic lifestyle of addiction needs to be recognised by more flexible compliance regimes and rehabilitation campaigns that reflect the unique situations of users. Rehabilitation measures dictated by both the judicial and social support areas need to be cautious of adopting a dogmatic view of 'success' and should instead focus on measures of rehabilitation which best reflect the realities of drug use.

This research revealed a strong and unified opinion that rehabilitation should be the court's primary focus when sentencing drug offenders. The inflexibility of the current sentencing hierarchy was seen as detrimental to the drug offender's progress. Under the present sentencing regime re-offenders are often placed under more onerous compliance orders, which upon default may result in imprisonment.

An approach that permits a degree of failure as part of the rehabilitation process, rather than as grounds for further punishment, is needed (although some respondents noted that a distinction needs to be made between offences which involve third party victims and crimes which are victim-less). Such an approach would not only adequately encompass the reality of addiction through further judicial education but would also operate in conjunction with other social support schemes.

Insufficient government funding has not only prevented reform, but also hampered the effective running of the present social support system for drug offenders. Funding limitations have contributed to a variety of problems. This investigation indicates it is essential, prior to entering into any rehabilitation program, that basic necessities such as food, shelter and health care are secured as a stable and accessible fixture in a user's life.

Respondents commented that:

Clearly, these problems alone indicate the need for further funding in order to make improvements.