Show Us Your Drug Policy!

Our New Drug Policy

The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) has written to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott with some questions about their alcohol and drugs policies. I thought I might check out their existing drug policies first but was dismayed to find that they didn’t exist. Both parties had a drug policy not too long ago which raises the question, why were they removed? Where is that infamous Liberal Party, "Tough on Drugs" policy that Howard, Pyne, Bishop (really old one), Mirabella, Ley and Abbott etc. were so defensive of? Where is Labor’s carbon copy? I notice The greens have a very clear and concise drug policy, albeit somewhat watered down in an attempt to appear more mainstream. And why is it that The Greens are the only major party to focus on Australia’s official drug policy of Harm Minimisation? 

Letter to Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard

With time running out in the run-up to the 21 August Federal Election, the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) sector is disappointed that YOUR policies on alcohol and other drugs have not been made public. Most importantly, the AOD sector wants to know will AOD services fit within the YOUR Government’s plans for National Primary Health Care Reform?

[…]

The Australian Greens have come forward with their National Health Care Plan and are to be congratulated for opening up the debate which you, as the leader of YOUR Party, must appreciate is an opportunity to take affirmative action to provide answers to our concerns. To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs (AOD) initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services.

ADCA urges you to recognise the critical importance of giving the highest priority to the health and social problems of AOD misuse, and the need for a strong, adequately trained, and funded AOD sector to address the continuing harms this causes. It is of great importance to the organisations and service providers ADCA represents that YOUR policies and commitment to the services and people who work in the AOD sector are made public, and that they address the context and principles that have been identified.

[…]

The announcement of the proposed Australian National Health Reform (NHHN) has the potential for substantial implications for the AOD sector. Treatment for AOD problems includes a range of service types including assessment, opiate substitution, withdrawal and post-withdrawal treatment, residential rehabilitation and drug counselling.

[…]

Acknowledging that the NHHN will reform the structure of health services, the funding models, and the funders, it is understood that the timeline for consideration of AOD treatment services has been scheduled for December 2010. While individuals and disciplines across the diverse AOD service system may hold differing views about the best arrangements for AOD services, there is agreement on the following core principles for treatment:

1. AOD addiction, or dependence, is a chronic medical condition with important social aspects. People with AOD problems often require a wide range of interventions over a long period of time. Strong linkages need to exist between a range of services types for patients to be able to experience good continuity of care and smooth referral processes between treatment types.
2. AOD services need to exist within non-government and primary health care settings.
3. A range of disciplines need to be involved (as mentioned previously), and cover both specialist and generalist practitioners.
4. Treatment must be based on evidence and based on demonstrated quality of treatment.
5. AOD services need to be adequately funded on a transparent funding formula. Historically and presently throughout Australia, salaries in the AOD sector have been below market standards, making it difficult to raise treatment and assistance services to an evidence-based standard.

ADCA, the AOD sector, and particularly undecided voters deserve to know where you and YOUR party stand on the future health and wellbeing of all Australians.

--Letter to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott from The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) [Full Letter Here]

You can exhale now. Tony Abbott has responded.

Thank you for your recent email to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP. As you may be aware, the Prime Minister has called a Federal Election. Unfortunately, from Opposition, we do not have the resources to respond to your email in detail during the campaign period, but your concerns will be brought to Tony’s attention and that of the Coalition Team.

After three years of Labor Government failures, Australians now have a choice. Broken promises, increased cost of living pressures, massive debt, a Budget deficit, waste and mismanagement and new taxes are all placing unnecessary pressures on Australians. Further, Labor have removed a Prime Minister quickly and ruthlessly, ignoring the wishes of Australian voters. But it is the same government with the same problems creating the same mess.

I hope you will get behind Tony in the weeks ahead as he seeks to stand up for Australia and take real action to end the waste, repay the debt, stop the taxes and ease the cost of living pressures on families. If you would like to read more detailed policy information please go to www.liberal.org.au

--Response form the Liberal Party.

Boy, what a let down. One paragraph explaining they are too busy to have a policy and two more paragraphs of scripted Liberal Party spin.

I remember not too long ago that the Libs were all "Tough on Drugs" and even held an enquiry called The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Several party heavyweights told us the Rudd government was losing focus on the drug war and had to toughen up. Even the leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull admitted to smoking weed but was then quick to point out, it was a mistake as we know now how dangerous pot is. So, where has the “Tough on Drugs" policy gone?

Yes, I've smoked pot. 

[…]

I think now, with what we know about marijuana, I think it is a very serious drug and it is a drug that we should strongly discourage everybody, be they young or old, but obviously particularly young people, from using.

--Malcolm Turnbull

At least the Libs responded to the ADCA letter (sort of). Where was Joolia’s reply? Maybe it’s the long term memory problems that go hand in hand with smoking the killer weed? You see, Joolia is also a self confessed, one time pot smoker. Not to beaten by a Lib namely, Malcolm Turnbull, the following day, Jools said: 

At university, tried it, didn't like it

[…]

I think probably many Australian adults would be able to make the same statement so I don't think it matters one way or the other.

--Julia Gillard

You would think that with so many political leaders (including Tony Abbott) confessing to breaking the law and admitting to drug use, they would be more informed about the drug issue.

On a side note, I what to know what politicians tried something harder. At least several US politicians including President Obama (and G.W. Bush in a round about way) admitted to using cocaine. During the 1970s, 80s and 90s, speed, magic mushrooms and LSD were making the rounds and any self respecting university student was bound to have participated at least once. C’mon guys … where’s the confessions of having a few lines of whiz or brewing up a batch of shrooms?

On Wednesday, The National Press Club presented The Hon Nicola Roxon MP VS The Hon Peter Dutton MP health debate. A major disappointment for those who were waiting for a drug policy announcement or discussion. Instead, we got the usual garble with promises to out do each other and each speaker claiming their party had the better health policy. Oh, there was one question about alcohol.

It’s easy to see why organisations like ADCA are disappointed. They are constantly ignored and made to suffer the consequences of misguided drug policies. And when they get finally get a chance to put some pressure on the major parties, they are just shoved aside for more pressing issues like Mark Latham, the real Julia vs. the old Julia or whether no more Workchoices means no more Workchoices. Below is another media alert from ADCA.

ADCA Media Alert (9 August): Three Weeks On – Where are the Alcohol & other Drugs Policies? – Election 2010.- With three weeks down and only 12 days to Election 2010, the conspicuous absence of major policy announcements on alcohol and other drugs (AOD) issues is disturbing.

“The AOD sector wants and needs more than a few elementary statements from Labor, the Liberals, Greens, and the Independents,” the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA), Mr David Templeman, said today. “It is not enough to read about the National Health Care Plan from the Greens, mental health funding and ‘a new investment to tackle AOD abuse in Indigenous communities’ from Labor, and a passing reference to healthcare in the Liberals campaign launch. 

“These are insufficient to stem concerns that all political parties have relegated the immense damaging impact alcohol and other drugs, both licit and illicit, are having on communities, to the bottom of their policy piles.”

Mr Templeman said that the Opposition missed an ideal opportunity at its launch to address the critical AOD priority for all Australians.

“With media reports suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition will consider his position on plain packaging for cigarettes, does this then mean that the alternative government will adopt the same approach on alcohol and other drugs and not come out publicly with definitive policies,” Mr Templeman said. “ADCA can only hope the schedule debate at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday (11 August) will result in both Labor and the Liberals making substantive statements that alcohol and other drugs issues are front and centre in their respective National Primary Healthcare Reform programs.”

Mr Templeman said that the AOD sector would be watching this debate with interest to see what both the Minister for Health, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, and the Opposition Spokesperson on Health, Mr Peter Dutton MP, plan to deliver if elected to Government.  

“To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services,” Mr Templeman said. “If our two major parties won’t come clean on just where alcohol and other drugs sit in Election 2010, ADCA calls on all media organisations to start questioning what is actually planned for a holistic approach to National Healthcare Reform.” 

UPDATE
The Sex Party have released their drug policy. Three cheers to Fiona Pattern and The Sex Party for their scientific yet pragmatic approach to such an important issue.

Rudd & Welfare Payments for Drug Users?

Last year, ex PM John Howard said he was going to quarantine welfare payments for people convicted of drug offences. In an interview before Howard's announcement, Rudd had already said he was in favour of restricting payments of drug addicted parents. Is Rudd going to invoke Howard's harsher strategy?

With the introduction of the ‘income management debit card’ in last night’s budget, the basics have been established and the plan is to roll it our nationally starting with Aboriginal communities in NT. Can the government resist extending it too far?

An article from Blogocracy last week talks about the proposed debit card for Aboriginal parents who are negligent towards their children. It quotes an extract from an article in The Australian.

A NATIONAL welfare card that will allow the Government to control payments to negligent parents across the country will be unveiled in Tuesday’s budget.

The debit card - to be introduced in selected indigenous communities before being rolled out across Australia - will ensure half of the cardholders’ welfare payments are spent on approved goods and services, such as food and clothing for their children, rather than wasted on alcohol and drugs. The card will not carry a photograph but will be PIN-coded to prevent it being sold on the black market and abused by welfare-dependent parents.

The Government last night confirmed plans for the card, saying it would slash red tape for business and make it easier for welfare recipients to obtain goods by widening the number of outlets where quarantined welfare payments could be accepted.

It will initially be introduced into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where the Government has begun quarantining welfare payments to improve standards of care for children. But the Government plans to roll the program out across the country and into white communities.

-The Australian

The article is prior to the budget so there is still some uncertainty. Nevertheless, comments started to speculate whether the welfare card should be distributed into the white community. Instinctively many started on why drug users should have their payments restricted or even stopped. There was plenty of opinions both ways but a comment from one reader put the problem in perspective:

This is a band-aid solution - it does nothing to address the real issues. I don’t think it will result in any real change at all. People aren’t going to stop problem drinking or drug use because of a card. When you make it harder, you just make people more deceptive.

-jm of adelaide

JM of Adelaide had hit the real issue. The crackdown on negligent parents was not the only problem, the use of penalties on drug addicts was. A debit card as a welfare penalty is one more issue that people with health issues like addiction have to deal with. There is an underlying health problem being ignored and applying a restriction will just create more desperate and maybe more deceptive practices to obtain money for drugs. Blogocracy content and it's readers are leagues above the usual Daily Telegraph/Herald-Sun/Courier etc. crap but many of the comments made were still ignorant of the health issue and were happy to dish out harsh penalties to those who really need help.

... if they test positive to drugs they automatically go on to the welfare debit card, if they are not already on it, and are subject to testing for the next 3 months. If they are already on the debit card they lose 10% of their cash payment, and 10% each time they test positive, after a month of no positive test they go back to normal. If they wipe out their complete cash payment Centrelink starts paying their rent and the have the debit card for food. At the end of the day though there is only so much you can do to help people.

When you drive down the street on a dole Thursday and see people passed out in the median strip there is something wrong. As the tax payers who support the system that gives them the money to do this we are responsible. The current system is not making the problem any better so we have to try something different, and anything we can do to stop them drinking themselves to death has to be an improvement.

-Link

I was interested to know how Link deducted that the “people passed out in the median strip” receive payment on “dole Thursday”. The fact is there is no set day for unemployment payments. Similar to how my brother once said that the streets were out of control on ‘methadone day’ assuming that methadone patients got dosed on the same, one day of the week. Interestingly, he said it was Thursday as well. Also, Link’s plan to penalise drug use is as ignorant as it gets. It’s a familiar argument though, where if tested positive, instead of getting help, you get punished. What if the person was given drugs for free? There’s no misspending of their welfare payment but would be penalised anyway. Moral welfare?

Why should government welfare go to supporting a drug habit(thats all drugs not just the illegal ones).Which currently they do.Should government be in the business of encouraging its citizens drug dependence.Then having to pay for the medical conditions that result from that dependence.

-sandgroper

When it becomes mainstream for welfare, who determines who receives the card and what they can buy? If someone has a drug problem are they allowed to buy smokes or porn? What about a heroin addict on treatment, would they qualify? And if they lapse for for a few weeks, what then? Most people on treatment lapse sometimes and if they don’t have cash ... that leaves begging, borrowing or crime.

I still like the idea of drug & alcohol testing people when they get the dole. -Link

So you go out for a family diner paid by your brother, have a few glasses of red wine and tested the next day. Where does this leave you? What about pornography testing? Gambling testing? The ‘income management debit card’ cannot be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash.

There was even that favourite of the modern right, “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”.

If you want the money it is because you want to spend it on things the government did not provide it for.

-sandgroper

The need to punish drug users was often outweighing the actual discussion of restricting welfare payments of those who neglect their children. It was becoming a forum for why drug users/addicts should get payment at all.

If any parents, aboriginal or otherwise, want to kill themselves with drugs and alcohol they can do it for all I care. I just don’t see why tax-payers should subsidise it, and if this card goes towards preventing that then I’m all for it.

-Banjo of Brisbane

And even this.

Yet a terrible thought crossed my mind going through this topic. Some of the worst addicted at worst might kill their children in the belief they will get more for their addictions, or at the least will blame the kids for their reduced ability to obtain drugs and alcohol and foist even more and terrible abuse on them.

-Adrian of Nowra

If the purpose of the ‘income management debit card’ is to stop purchases of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash, what's to stop the government expanding the program to include workers? The current plan is targeted at a specific group but the government hasn't announced it's drug policy yet.

A lot of posters seem to assume that only welfare recipients neglect or abuse their children. What about parents who have jobs and waste their money on drugs, alcohol and gambling and neglect or abuse their children? Will the government confiscate their wages and issue them with a card?

-janetheunhowardhugger

Would you support the quarantining of payments for all Australian parents who use drugs and neglect their children? The moralists will argue feverishly for this and in today's political climate, it may be a vote winner. Somehow though, I feel the emphasis will be on the drug usage separately from the neglect of children. The one bright spot is that both Nicola Roxon and Kevin Rudd have mentioned that future drug policies need to be more individualised. An extremely important point that Howard's Zero Tolerance badly missed with it's blanket approach. Remember Howard was determined to change drug terminology and lump all drug use into one evil bucket of death.

And I’m seeking to conclude our point about child welfare to say that that policy was put out by us in July this year prior to Mr Howard making any such statement. Secondly, on the question of broader quarantining of welfare payments, we believe that the smart thing to do there is to take the advice of a combination of the police and the relevant health authorities as to what is best in individual circumstances. And I’ve tried to look at the detail of what Mr Howard has said. It’s full of holes, and I’d much rather see what concrete proposals he’s really additionally suggesting here. Our approach to this is to make sure that we’ve got a tailored approach to individual circumstances which is based on the best law enforcement advice, and the best advice of the health professionals.

-Kevin Rudd. Radio Interview ABC 774 Melbourne. November 2007

Once again we are seeing a health issue being treated with disciplinary action. I have no qualms about parents who neglect their children being scrutinised and dealt with but these new measures and the possible outcomes are also targeting drug addicts are a priority. They are not targeting drug addicts to help them as there are many other ways to help that are being ignored. Punitive actions are counter productive and do not address the core problems. I once described these actions as fighting a fire. You need to attack the base not the tips of the flame. It might dull the fire and keep it out of sight from a distance but the core fuel is burning hot as ever. Simply put, welfare quarantining for drug addicts solely because of their drug use does not fix the problem, it makes it worst. Medicine diagnosed addiction hundreds of years ago. Society just chose to treat it as a crime.

Rudd Falls Into Line / Luck Of The Draw

KEVIN RUDD had a chance to continue the success of his current world trip and impress NATO with some fresh ideas on Afghanistan. He could have at least given his support to some alternative plans being suggested by several NATO members. He could have ... but he didn't.

Is Kevin Rudd just another US stooge like John Howard and taking the same familiar path?  

When Kevin Rudd took office last November, there was some optimisism from drug policy reformists. After 11 years of ignorance and Howards curtailing to the US conservative forces, there was some hope that Australia would join other countries in redefining a more pragmatic drug policy. The statement from Rudd that futures policies would be “evidence based” gave hope that finally facts would win over political, moral and religious rhetoric.

Except for some off handed comments that Labor were “tough on drugs”, there has been very little indication about which path Rudd will take. That was until his recent overseas trip. Rudd has just spent time in the US to discuss our diplomatic ties and it looks like the spin doctors had a field day with him.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Bucharest, Rudd has made his priority the eradication of Afghanistan's opium fields including detailed plans on how to do it. The influence from the US was obvious and the European leaders in NATO were not impressed with the tired old agenda being thrown at them. The European leaders were expecting more from our new PM considering they had made their feelings clear about Howard’s constant mirroring of US policy. The call for more troops was also seen as another US ploy and again reminiscent of the Howard years. Australia has only 1000 troops in Afghanistan and is often criticised by the Europeans for pushing the US agenda without fully committing more troops themselves.

Crop eradication has never met expectations with Colombia being the obvious benchmark. Crop spraying has had very little success and Colombian cocaine has actually increased in production. The only visible results is a country now being run with a paramilitary style police force murdering locals on the street and thousands of innocent farmers losing their legitimate crops to US led cocaine eradication programs.

In Afghanistan, the US has already poured in $1.2 billion into a program of slashing the poppy harvest worth only $1 billion. Opium production went up 30%. The main outcome was increasing hatred of the west from farmers who had their livelihood taken away. The US is now trying to force the Afghanistan government into arial spraying and Rudd is seen as a keen US supporter much like Howard was. The US has appointed former Colombian ambassador, William Wood as it’s ambassador in Kabul. Wood is commonly known as "Chemical Bill" in Washington for his introduction of the Colombian chemical eradication program. You know, the program that didn’t work.

The US could have bought the opium from the farmers and burnt it but it would be “sending the wrong message”. Such is the stupidity of the “War on Drugs”. The other plan to turn Afghanistan’s farmers onto alternative crops has been tried and failed several times. This was Rudd’s sugestion to deal with the locals and the loss of their primary income. It was dismissed quickly by nonchalant NATO officials.

If this is an example of the alternative to Howard’s drug strategy then we are in for a long three years. Australia has spent decades building up Harm Minimisation and was considered a leader worldwide until Howard rode the wave of US conservatism and tried to replace it with a US style zero tolerance policy. Rudd has the chance to now catch up and once again show that facts, research and humane government policies will put us on the map far more than kissing US butt ever will.

The Luck Of The Draw

Mr. David Paterson, newly elevated Governor of NY, recently acknowledged that he used cocaine and marijuana in his younger years. Had he been unlucky enough back then to get busted for possession of a single joint, or a trace amount of coke, he'd probably be in jail now, or trying to overcome a "criminal record" and find a job, or perhaps dead. Instead, because he had the good fortune not to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he is responsible for governing NY State - and however one judges his likelihood of governing well, no one has suggested for a moment that he's unqualified in the light of his acknowledgment. 

Justice should not hinge on luck. Hopefully, the new governor will reconsider our drug policies in light of his own experience. He has long advocated changing the Draconian Rockefeller Law; now he should push for an even more radical change in how we approach drug use in our state and nation. If any political leader can empathize with the real victims of the drug war, he can!

-RG Newman MD, Opiate Addiction. 

Govt. Get Tough On Drugs In Sport ... Again ... Again

Oh dear, here we go again. Drugs in sport was such a hot issue ... until Howard stopped raising it. Fortunately, he couldn't say anymore because he wasn't PM anymore and soon the issue disappeared. Not wanting to be beaten to the title as the 'Tough on Drugs' political party, the government has decided to stick it's head in the sand and blow hot air out of it's arse by declaring they are working on a new policy. Late last month, Federal Sport Minister Kate Ellis confessed to preparing a new anti-illicit drugs policy for sport aimed at enforcing tougher standards for all national sports. So it seems any hope for a sensible debate on drugs in sport is looking slim.

Federal Sport Minister Kate Ellis:

“We want to be very clear that our sporting role models aren't sending any mixed messages to the broader community as we try and make it clear that illicit drug use in unacceptable and dangerous...”

These deluded politicians are mixing up performance enhancing drugs with illicit drugs. I have no tolerance for drug cheats in sport either. It is a professional industry and based on competition. It needs a level playing field and taking performance enhancing drugs is cheating. If they weren't competing, then who cares but as we saw with Marion Jones, the effects it had on other competitors was devastating.

Recreational drug use is personal. They have no contract with the government or some moral overlord (like Dr. Who) to be a role model to kids. They are not obliged to resist drugs or alcohol just because they're sports stars. It's their business and no person or government has the right to make them separate from society because Australians are a 'sporty bunch' or that we still see ourselves as part of Howard's Australia, idolising sport. How moronic is it that other celebrities like musicians or actors are known for their liberal use of drugs but sports stars are too good for that because they are, well, basically they are good at catching or kicking a ball.

DFA's Report Backfires

I notice on the government funded, Drug Free Australia (DFA) website that they have published an interesting report. Before the election, they claimed they asked the political parties what their drug policies were. As usual, DFA twisted the terminology to promote their ridiculous zero tolerance stance and instead of just asking for a policy they produced this:

Seven weeks ago Drug Free Australia sent a survey to all major parties, asking for their commitment to some key issues related to preventing and reducing illicit drug and alcohol use in Australia. The survey challenged the parties to commit to:

• a multi-partite, more restrictive approach to illicit drugs 
• refocussing away from an emphasis on harm minimization to one of greater emphasis on harm prevention. 
• Not legalising illicit drugs

Last week, due to some generalized responses we followed up by emailing specific questions:

What is your party’s policy position on:

• medically supervised injecting rooms, 
• heroin on prescription, 
• Pill testing at RAVEs, 
• medical use of cannabis, 
• cannabis decriminalisation?

We also issued two media releases calling for truth and transparency from parties, allowing time for their correction of any assumption we had made from the past.

From the information we have to date, the following is our assessment of current policy positions of each of the parties.

Don't you love the way they have worded this. The first part challenged the parties to commit to [insert the Libs zero tolerance policy here]. Obviously the survey didn't produce the simple answers that would give them the ammo needed to cry out "they are soft on drugs!!! ... don't vote for them". So they tried again with a more detailed approach: "What is your party’s policy position on [insert evil vote losing policies here].

This is where the hope came in. Labor, The Greens and The Democrats all said they DO NOT support DFA's zero tolerance. At risk of getting caught in DFA's trap, Labor, surprisingly rejected the ideals that are usually seen as voter friendly pushed by the DFA. Though being a bit vague, harm minimisation was their policy and were open to touchy subjects like prescription heroin, medical marijuana etc.

Just a quick side track. Notice the Labor results. DFA have added to Labor results in small bold print, "Past records indicate that Labor: [insert more evil, loose moral policies]".

Party	Illicit Drug Policy
Liberal/Nationals:	Does commit to a ‘tough on drugs’ stance for all drugs, and a clear message of zero tolerance to illegal drugs Does acknowledge the dangers of cannabis and Ice and have plans in place to prevent and reduce their impact Does not support medically supervised injecting rooms, in line with United Nations Conventions and Australian Constitutional Law Does not condone the legalisation of illicit drugs. Does not support legalized heroin or cannabis for medical purposes Does not support pill testing at RAVES
Family first	Does commit to a zero tolerant approach to illicit drugs Does not condone harm minimization Does not condone the legalisation of illicit drugs and associated policies.
Labor	Does not commit to a zero tolerant approach to illicit drugs. Does have a general platform of prevention, early intervention and harm minimization, but no details yet provided Will commit to a campaign to combat ICE, but no details provided. No current information available about the policy on legalising illicit drugs Past records indicate that Labor: Does support medically supervised injecting rooms Does support legalized heroin or cannabis for medical purposes Does support pill testing at RAVES Does support the decriminalization of Cannabis
The Greens	Does not commit to a zero tolerant approach to illicit drugs Does support harm minimisation Does condone legalising cannabis for medical purposes
Democrats	Does not commit to a zero tolerant approach to illicit drugs Does not favour legalising illicit drugs Does support medically supervised injecting rooms

 

Luckily there is a website that monitors DFA called Drug Free Australia Watch Blog. 

DFA is a dangerous and out of touch organisation fuelled by Howard's 1950's view of Australia. Like the U.S. style "abstinence" approach to teenage sex, it concludes that just saying no will work. Why teach contraception and sex education when teenagers can just abstain. Of course the facts are that teenagers have always and will forever have sex and no amount of moral conviction will stop ALL teenagers bonking. To get their point across, they lie about the failure rate of condoms and try to scare teenagers with horror stories of HIV, STDs and unwanted pregnacies. They do this whilst offering comfort of moral righteousness and family values through abstinence. DFA uses these same techniques and the carnage is paramount. People like myself suffer because these bozzos are pushing their self righteous bullshit on policy makers. In this conservative environment, these liars get taken seriously because they are a safe bet with voters. Hopefully this new government will honour the claim that Rudd made about being a policy based government using science and expert opinion and also religion is a private matter and not part of the policy process.

I read an excellent article about Howard's complete ignorance of science/facts and how his moral views have dictated policy. It examines how Howard was prepared to force his own moral beliefs onto everything including government committees, existing policies and expert groups even though Australia was leading the world to combating major problems like the spread of AIDS. The article also mentions a new documentary on the ABC called Rampant: How A City Stopped A Plague.

You must read this article: Howards Intolerance

New Start?

You know I was not impressed with Nicola Roxon's response to what is The ALP's drug policy and I really thought we would just get more of the same conservative, "War on Drugs" rhetoric.

With this in mind, I was shocked to see our new leader who looks uncannily like the milky bar kid go to work the day after winning the election. No BBQ or sleep in after too much red wine but off to church, lunch and then work. He's not even PM yet. If the his first day (a Sunday) is any indication of what Rudd is about, maybe there's hope.

• Ministerial code of conduct to improve standards of accountability in government. (No more Bushesque/Howardite secrecy where ministers often refused to allow advisers to appear before parliamentary committees)
• Implementing changes now ... right now. Dismantling Workchoices, Kyoto, hospital reforms etc. Called in his team to fly to Brisbane for meetings on a Sunday, less than 24 hours since Howard officially conceded defeat.
• The bright star for me personally, Julia Gillard has already hinted at saying "sorry" to the indigenous people of Australia.
• A few reports have suggested Rudd is a rationalist and very much for reason based politics leaving his religious/moral views behind. One could only hope.

More Political Madness

I was sent this link by Paul at Firesnake (http://firesnake.org/):

Democrat, Sandra Kanck speaks out

S.A. Democrat, Sandra Kanck has questioned the Hon. Ms Bressington's bill aimed at banning drug paraphernalia (bongs etc.). Surely people like Bressington aren't taken seriously? How can Sandra Kanck's argument be ignored and Bressington's views endorsed? How ... how? Fucking madness.

Libs, Labor ... what's the difference?

...and so we are going to get more of the same!.

A friend wrote to Nicola Roxon, the Labor shadow minister for health and asked if they were going to follow the Liberal Party's lead of a "War on Drugs" type policy. I should of known the answer but for some reason I had a slither of hope. Politicians are animals of self interest and most of them deserve to be jailed for crimes to humanity. The pain and death they cause us is criminal and I truly, truly despise these worthless flesh carcasses. I wonder if they got sick ... real sick, real slowly and suffered what many millions suffer worldwide, if then they might understand the pain and hurt they inflict on so many people with the policies they create and support.

Anyway the questions asked via an email:

• What is the ALP policy on health & drug reform? I did not find any clear indication from the ALP website.
• Is a new Labor Party government going to follow Howard’s outdated U.S. Lead ‘War on Drugs’ approach or is the Labor Party going to use health & science as their basis for treating drug addicts?
• Is your party supporting ‘harm minimisation’ or supporting Bronwyn Bishop’s latest report findings. After Bronwyn Bishop’s report, I read so many negative opinions and nearly every health professional who commented on it, was scathing of the contempt The Prime Minister and Bronwyn Bishop had for harm minimisation.
• Is Labor going to follow the European lead and use science, heath and experts to determine this serious issue of drug addiction and not use fear or morals to enforce a law & order policy. It has not worked for 30 years now and in fact only drives up crime, repression and misery.

Dear XXX

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse. This is evidenced by a series of recent Labor policy announcements.

Labor has committed to a National Strategy to crack down on methamphetamines or “ice.” This included:

a ban on importing ice pipes and other drug paraphernalia; and

either further restrictions or a complete ban on sale of pseudoephedrine - a key ingredient of methamphetamine - to minors;

work to restrict or ban the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet; and

the extension of the special reference to the Australian Crime Commission to conduct a national investigation into the criminals engaged in the manufacture, sale and use of methamphetamine.

Labor has also committed to boost Australian Federal Police numbers by 500 including tackling the importation of illicit drugs.

Labor supports the aim of helping those who use illicit drugs become drug free. It must be recognised that illicit drug use and drug addiction in particular can be complex. Despite the best efforts of families, Governments, health professionals and community groups such as churches, a small number of people still engage in drug taking behaviour. This is a tragedy that families across the social spectrum face.

How best to deal with those who are resistant to intervention is not an easy task but society should not give up on trying to engage them in treatments that will see them become drug free and minimise the harm they do to themselves and their families. Labor believes that health professionals need to be able to use a range of prevention and intervention approaches and that these must be seen as part of a continuum that has freedom from drugs as an end goal.

Thank you for writing to Federal Labor about this important issue.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Roxon MP

Shadow Minister for Heatlh 

Interestingly, something I have thought about for a while now was echoed by everyone's favourite 'legitimate' righty, Tim Blair who wrote the usual pro Howard rant in the Daily Telegraph titled Sweet Taste of Defeat". 

"The fun might even begin tonight, if you're a conservative cornered by some lefty commie atheist in a dire Don's Party-type scenario. Ask him to reflect on the fact that the Left's new hero is a millionaire Jesus-boy whose policies place him further to the Right than any previous Labor leader and possibly further to the Right than John Howard was in 1996."

Very true.

The Problem with Silly Procedures

Diary: 

A few days ago, my take-away dose of methadone was knocked over and I lost over half. Because you cannot go a day without your full dose you have to go through a procedure to have the dose replaced. Luckily I have a great doctor and normally he would write a replacement script but this day he had left work early and that was that. A methadone patient is regarded by many as scum and it is extremely hard to get a chemist or practically anyone to bend the rules because of an emergency. It doesn't help that addiction causes desperation and often patients will lie to get an extra dose. I imagine that if it was diabetics or some other situation that relies having a regular dose of something, the chemist would do whatever it took to treat the patient or there would be safe guards built into the system. Since my prescribing doctor was not available, I had no way of getting my replacement dose. The actual reply from the chemist was "just come back tomorrow, easy". True, it was very easy ... easy to say but the reality is that I was in for one hell of a day and night. 

I won't try to explain the pain because you can't. Just think about why heroin addicts are notorious for doing ANYTHING to get a hit ... because the pain is that bad. What would drive someone to risk jail? What would drive someone to risk their job, their reputation, their friends or even their family just for a hit? Surely some logic must prevail here and the wallies who create government policy should ask medical or scientific opinion before creating laws and procedures that belong in the 1900s. Anyway, my only option was buy alternative medication. mmm, what is available to me. That's right, there's a place that sells just what I need. It's expensive though but I need medication so I purchased some heroin. I have several options to buy heroin and it is easier to get than shoes. In my area there is only one shoe shop but 3 heroin dealers I know of. If you looked carefully, I am sure there are no more shoe shops but at least 10 more heroin dealers. I usually go to my preferred vendor. Much more flexible than the shoe shop because he is open 24/7 and there is no waiting in queues. There is also no age restrictions, no quality control and no tax. In fact because of the silly laws the criminals and drug dealers have full responsibility of the heroin industry. They control the employees, the product quality, the sales locations etc. Here's the real beauty though ... when you arrest a dealer, another one replaces him immediately. Even better, there is an unlimited supply of dealers. Every cent spent "cleaning up the streets" is for nothing. The U.S. spends 69, 000 million dollars a year for fighting drugs. Australia's budget is unknown but no drug operation here has a made a dent EVER! Don't you think the big operators build in a certain percentage for loss?

What if heroin was registered as a prescription drug? Would there be an explosion of new users and would we be stepping over junkies in the street? The politicians sure think so... or do they?

FYI: In 1913, the estimated number of drug addicts in the U.S. was 1.3%. It was so bad according to religious groups that they forced the government to ban them using drug prohibition. During the 1950s, the official estimate of drug addicts in the U.S. was 1.3%. In 1971, President Nixon declared the "War on Drugs" which is just aggressive prohibition. Before the "War on Drugs" started, the estimated number of drug addicts in the U.S. was 1.3%. In 1996 the estimated number of drug addicts in the U.S. was 1.3%. After 36 years of this absurd "War on Drugs" and over 1000 billion dollars later, the estimated number of drug addicts in the U.S. was still 1.3%.

The Howard government has declared they support the U.S. styled "War on Drugs" and proclaimed their own "Tough on Drugs" policy. Is this really an intelligent policy that was researched? Obviously not. Sadly, I feel the Labor Party is going to blindly follow the same approach. Rudd as declared that his faith is very important to him and that usually means, his morals have to be pushed on everyone else. The Democrats and The Greens both support a heroin trial and agree that addiction is a health issue and that people should not be locked up for having an addiction. Yet these parties are classed as 'radical' or 'whacky'. WTF? These parties seem to follow the line that Australians come before self interest and the government is for the people, not our moral conscience.

Related Links: The Greens Drug Policy The Democrats Drug Policy