Hong Kong's proposed drug testing plan needs full debate

The law giving police the power to test drivers for drugs was not controversial, given that lives and property could be saved. But a government scheme to apprehend people on the street based on how they appear and act - and then take them in for testing - is a rather different matter. The plans are laid out in a public consultation document giving justification based on how easy it is to hide the problem. In light of the human rights and privacy issues involved, the proposal has to be thoroughly discussed and debated.

Record drug hauls have been netted in our city over the past year, but authorities are vague about whether the narcotics seized were destined for local, mainland or overseas markets. Regardless, statistics show a marked and steady fall in abuse, with the number of cases reported last year down 23 per cent from the peak of 14,241 in 2008. An especially sharp drop was noticed in those aged under 21, with a 54 per cent decline. Surveys of high school students confirm the trend.

The successes are the result of billions of dollars being put into programmes to fight drugs and their abuse. Despite that, though, the government's advisory body on the problem, The Action Committee Against Narcotics, contends its Rescue Drug Testing Scheme is necessary due to a belief that there has been a rise in home drug use. It argues that police should be empowered to require those suspected of taking drugs to undergo tests. If the tests are positive, the way would be open for referral to social workers or health care professionals for counselling and treatment.

Identifying drug abusers as early as possible, so that they can receive treatment, is a worthy government objective. But deciding who is a drug abuser, how they should be detected and what course of action is best are controversial matters. Possession of banned drugs is a crime, but use of them is not. A pilot drug testing scheme in schools was not formalised, giving the impression that such ideas are the wrong approach.

The four-month consultation, to be followed by a second process after views have been reviewed, is a necessary way forward. Adopting such a scheme could be costly and it is of little use unless there are appropriate facilities and treatment available for the anticipated increase in patient numbers. But of greatest concern should be whether it is what Hong Kong needs. Given that cherished basic rights may be infringed, there has to be the widest possible community discussion.