serious questions. The main question is really one of value for money. Just because there may be public money available does not mean that it should be spent without careful consideration for the returns it brings. Bermudians are never very comfortable with paying for people to organise what they see as a "charity'' event. That is not the way Bermudians prefer to do things.

We do understand that the drug trade is well organised big business and has to be faced as such, that being the case a "moment'', even a five minute moment, will not make much dent. We agree that the public awareness of drugs created by this "Moment'' is helpful as a small part of the fight against drugs. Yet, it is impossible to judge what impact this promotion has on drug use and drug abuse in Bermuda.

There are persistent reports that this "Moment'' is costing $160,000 with $70,000 being paid to organisers. We believe the figure is close to correct and, if it is not, then the people involved should provide the correct figure.

In defence of the figure, it is claimed that overseas organisers demand $100,000 to promote events but that is not relevant here in Bermuda because access to promotion is much easier.

As an example, the Bermuda Festival was built into a major success largely by one volunteer working hard at the Festival's promotion. Where the Moment of Consciousness is concerned, we have to wonder what there is to pay for except some T-shirts and some printing. It is the kind of public event which the media is happy to promote with editorial space and time, especially since it deals with drugs. The media in Bermuda does everything it can to help with drugs and this newspaper was involved in the war on drugs when most people were still denying there was a problem. Surely churches, schools and businesses which promote the October 20 event do not charge.

We do not see the Moment of Consciousness as a major event in the fight against drugs nor do we think it is worth $160,000 considering the concrete things which could be provided with that money. Those people sponsoring the event must question whether such a large sum of public money could be put to better use. For instance, we could have more Police on the drugs squad or more counsellors for those addicted or we could send 16 people abroad for rehabilitation.

There is another aspect to this. The public purse and charity donations are not limitless. Many members of the public will see this expenditure as wasteful at a time when they are very conscious of Government spending. Those who are generous to charities may well question gifts to the Council Partners who raise funds for drug related organisations, including the National Drugs Commission.

It seems that this event may have been started privately and then palmed off on a Government agency for a profit. Too much of that goes on in the drugs field. The churches started Fairhavens and then asked Government and the public to bear the costs.

There are enough problems now in the vital area of drugs prevention with the Progressive Labour Party constantly dragging its feet and giving the appearance of being permissive on drug use. We do not need the public to be discouraged or angered by what they might well see as wasteful spending.