position of democrats on random drug testing

[Hagakure]

democrat position

SANDRA KANCK

Australian Democrats

Member of the Legislative Council SA

SPEECH IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Wednesday 21 February 2007

(RANDOM DRUG TESTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 February. Page 1397.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I have major concerns with this bill, and I hope that there will be enough common­sense in this chamber for it to be defeated. The bill itself is poorly thought out and this is demonstrated by the fact that the bill itself is three pages long yet the mover of the bill has tabled three pages of amendments. If this bill were to pass I would be actively working to encourage parents to object to such testing and I would be working to create a civil diso­bedience movement amongst high school students to refuse to undertake the test. It is not that I advocate the use of drugs, but I deplore the idea of testing people in this way. It is not the way in which our schools should be used.

This is part of a steadily increasing number of incursions into our freedoms. It could well be counterproductive in terms of school absenteeism and encourage greater experimentation in drugs that may be more addictive and more harmful but used because they are not able to be detected by the testing regime. Our schools are not police stations: they are places of education. This bill is a dangerous step in changing that. There is at present a degree of trust between a student and a teacher, but that relationship faces deterioration and in some cases destruction if random drug testing is instituted. As a former teacher I know that teachers have a role to play in observing declining grades or counterproductive behaviour of students and assisting, where possible, to turn that around. They can work with the student or refer them to a school counsellor, and if drug taking is discovered as a contributing factor then appropriate action can be taken; and any counsel­lor worth their salt would find whether or not the drug taking is masking an underlying problem and deal with that problem.

The Hon. Ms Bressington refers to examples of drug testing in some other nations. In regards to the extracurricular schools drug testing that US schools can opt into, she quotes Supreme Court judge Justice Clarence Thomas in that court's judgment on the issue as proof of the efficacy of testing. I think it is just as valid to quote another of the judges who found differently. Justice Ruth Bader said it was `unreason­able, capricious and even perverse'. And that is what I think of this bill: it is unreasonable, capricious and even perverse.

The Hon. Ms Bressington's proposition is that if we can stop adolescents from using drugs it will stop drug habits develop­ing into adulthood. As a hypothesis this might seem to be so, but the scientific literature does not support it. In an opinion piece on 3 January this year in The New York Times, juvenile justice researcher Mike Males reported that an analysis of available data at the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs revealed that `the biggest contributors to California's drug abuse, death and injury toll are educated middle-aged women living in the Central Valley and rural areas, while the fastest declining lowest risk populations are urban black and Latino teenagers'. I think I heard the Hon. Ms Lensink say she does not believe that.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I didn't believe the stuff about middle aged women.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It has come from data from the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Program, so it really does not matter whether you believe it or not, it is what the data says. Mike Males also examined the figures published by conserva­tive anti-drugs group Monitor­ing the Future, and discov­ered:

In years in which a higher percentage of high school seniors told the survey takers they used illicit drugs, teenagers consistently reported and experienced lower rates of crime, murder, drug-related hospital emergencies and death, suicides, HIV infection, school dropouts, delinquency, pregnancy, violence, theft in and outside of school, and fights with parents, employers and teachers.

The real problem exists with the baby boomers, it seems. It continues:

Among Americans in their 40s and 50s, deaths from illicit drug overdoses have risen by 800 per cent since 1980, including 300 per cent in the last decade.

I know it might be counterintuitive, and it does not stack up against the more sensational media reporting about drug use, but these are excellent examples of why we should not base our drug problems on intuition, what we believe, or how we feel.

As Ms Bressington is relying on the experience and programs of other countries, the transcript of a press conference by the Monitoring the Future group makes interesting reading. When it was releasing its figures for 2004 with great fanfare at a well-organised press conference, it was put under pressure from drug law reform advocates which resulted in the principal researcher, Dr Lloyd Johnston, responding:

We looked at schools doing any kind of testing, mostly for cause, and didn't find any statistically significant differences in drug use rates between schools that tested and those that didn't.

He also stated:

We also looked at schools that did random tests of student athletes. . . and again there were no significant differences in the rates of marijuana use or illicit drug use in general.

He further stated:

Drug testing up to the present time hasn't been effective.

This is from a group that is advocating the testing. The quotes speak for themselves and show that the program advocated in this bill is not likely to provide either educational or health outcomes for young people in South Australia.

I was pleased to hear the Hon. Ian Hunter's contribution on behalf of the government, which was that the government will be opposing the bill. It means that, even if passed in this chamber, it would be defeated in the House of Assembly; again, this shows the value of having a bicameral system of parliament where every idea has to be tested twice.

[Benzito]

hear hear!

[apothecary]

I said it before and I'll say it again, Sandra Kanck for PM!

[Torsten]

Sandra Kanck rocks! The only problem is that she is not fully supported by her party. So, don't make the mistake of voting democrat in other states. The only party with a decent drug law reform agenda are the greens. However, if you live in SA, make sure to give Sandra Kanck as much support as you can.

[Torsten]

with NSW elections coming up I thought I'd post the NSW Democrats' drug policy. It's pretty much the same as the greens, so watch out where your preferences end up.

================

Drugs

The Democrats recognise that criminalising drug use has failed as a policy objective. While making drugs illegal was seen as minimising their use and the social harm from this, it has become an end in itself and has resulted in distorted priorities in the allocation of resources .

Prohibition did not work for alcohol in the 1930s, and similarly it must be acknowledged that it is not working for narcotics. 70% of those in the criminal justice system are there due to either drug-related crimes or to get money for drug use. This money could better be used for drug treatment in a more preventive social interventions or a treatment model. The objective of drug policy must be to lessen the harm drugs do to people. This harm relates to their pharmacological effects, but also the routes and methods of administration, their social uses and consequences and the economics and criminalisation of their use.

The Democrats also acknowledge that simply legalising all drugs and increasing their availability is simplistic, is likely to increase the quantities used and will not reduce their social harm. The Democrats therefore advocate a lessening of penalties for personal use and a regulation of the supply of drugs with a view to lessening the resources used in the criminal justice system and an increasing efforts in prevention and help for addicts and those affected by drugs.

WHAT WILL THE DEMOCRATS DO?

Press for the implementation of Dr Alex Wodak's 10 point plan;

1. Redefine drug use as primarily a health and social problem, rather than a criminal justice one.

2. Set appropriate penalties for manufacturers and traffickers of drugs that do medical and social harm, but with lesser penalties for personal use.

3. Cannabis use should be decriminalised for personal use along the model used in South Australia .

4. Drug funding allocation must be changed from principally being spent on law enforcement and incarceration and put into treatment and prevention programmes.

5. Prevention must be taken seriously. This must be by providing regulated and taxed cannabis, and providing heroin on prescription to registered users. Research-based school and community drug education must be funded at realistic levels, which may be some dollars per person per year. Such drug education must focus on the positive benefits of a drug-free lifestyle, rather than the fear of drugs.

6. Drug treatment options must be increased, and diversion of addicts from the court system must be improved.

7. Drug treatments and policy must be research-based and driven by proper scientific research.

8. There must be a renewed commitment to harm minimisation as the objective of drug policy. Harm reduction may involve approaches like methadone to lessen injecting drug use, prescription heroin, injecting rooms or the supply of clean needles.

9. Drug offenders should be diverted from gaol to treatment programmes, which are only a quarter of the cost of incarceration and have better long-term outcomes.

10. Goals and targets must be set in drug use and policy measured against these objectives. Data on numbers of addicts must be monitored by an adequate scientific method, which informs policy.