Editorial: P marchers right to seek action

Just occasionally, a community minded individual with a rare determination produces a special sort of initiative. Such is the case with Marie Cotter, a 57-year-old grandmother who last December became acquainted with the devastation being wrought by methamphetamine use while working as a budgeter for a social services organisation in Pukekohe. The outcome of her unease was the idea of a march to Parliament. With remarkably short notice, it left Victoria Park in Auckland yesterday morning and is due to reach Wellington on Thursday.

There are two strands to Ms Cotter's Fight Against P march. The first is to draw public attention to the curse that is P (pure methamphetamine). It could, in fact, be argued to what degree that awareness needs to be enhanced. In the manner of an epidemic, P has spread to most parts of the country over the past few years. Few people can be unaware of the way in which the highly addictive drug has permeated schools and workplaces, towns and cities, all the time making no distinction on the basis of ethnic grouping or socio-economic standing.

Few, also, cannot fail to appreciate the way in which P can drive users to psychotic violence, against themselves or others. It has been implicated in several high-profile crimes, including the triple slaying at the Panmure RSA by William Bell, and the murder of Coral-Ellen Burrows by her step-father, Steven Williams, at Featherston in 2003. Additionally, there have been well-publicised cases of users committing armed robberies or turning to prostitution to feed an addiction that can cost $3000 a week.

What cannot be argued, however, is the validity of the march's second strand. Greater recognition of the problem and improved and more specialised resourcing has helped the police make an increasing number of methamphetamine lab busts. But far too little is being done to help those addicted to P, or to dissuade people of all ages, but especially the young, from using the stimulant. This was the problem originally brought to Ms Cotter's attention. "A woman came to me, crying her eyes out because she'd been knocking on all the services' door asking for help for her family members who were suffering from the effects of P ... and she couldn't get help."

Remedying this situation is the key ambition of the march, which will conclude with primary schoolchildren, many from homes wrecked by P, presenting MPs with advice on the formulation of a government response designed to stamp out the drug while assisting its victims. This includes more treatment programmes, compulsory drug education in schools, a dedicated anonymous call centre to provide information and help, more rehabilitation programmes in prisons, and tougher penalties for drug dealers.

A broad-based, coordinated reaction involving such features is undoubtedly required if the P scourge is to be defeated. No one single response will stop the trade. The police have an important role to play, but so, too, in the longer term does education. As Ms Cotter suggests, additional resourcing will be needed to deliver a message that, in time, will eradicate demand for the drug.

More than enough damage has already been done. The marchers' laying of wreaths on the steps of Parliament in memory of the lives lost to P will provide graphic evidence of that. Now is the time for the Government to realise its response has lacked reach, resolve and coordination. If the Fight Against P march convinces it of that, we will all owe a debt to Marie Cotter.