Committee recommends zero tolerance in drug fight

[apothecary]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/13/2032435.htm

A federal parliamentary committee has come down harder than ever on the "Just say no" side of the argument.

It has recommended the Government stop funding harm minimisation services, wants an even more graphic advertising campaign launched and proposed adopting out the children of drug addicts.

But its conclusions are already meeting a lot of criticism from the services and families that deal with these problems every day.

In the homes of families where drugs are a problem, the effects can be devastating. Whether it is the parents or the children who are abusing substances, it impacts on everyone.

Maria Podbury is a counsellor at the Moreland Community Health Service in Victoria and she has seen the realities first hand.

"Family relationships are impacted on, family well-being is impacted on and it's not just in their relationship with their drug - a dependent person, a drug user... families and parents become incredibly stressed, there's a lot of conflict, a lot of tension," she said.

Harm prevention

The Federal Parliamentary Committee on Family and Human Services has been investigating the effects illicit drugs have on families.

In releasing its report today, it found vulnerable young people are the hidden victims - with stories about children going without food, showers and school.

The 31 recommendations in the report take a tough, zero-tolerance approach to try to stamp out drug use completely.

Committee chairwoman Bronwyn Bishop says the Federal Government should move its entire drug strategy away from harm minimisation to harm prevention.

She wants all funding pulled from treatment services that do not have the express aim of getting users drug-free - that could include needle exchange and methadone programs.

"It means that the aim of the program or the body that is getting the funding, they must have the ultimate aim of the individual becoming drug free. Not that they can perpetually be on drugs and that's okay," she said.

Coupled with that, the committee has proposed a new wave of television advertising that is even more graphic than the current campaigns.

It wants words like "harm" to be replaced by "damage", "destruction" and "danger".

And the committee says the safety of children should outweigh those of drug-using parents. It wants the law changed so minors can be put into mandatory treatment.

The committee has recommended when addicts have children under the age of five, the default action should be adopting them out.

"There is this entrenched attitude in the bureaucracy [of] anti-adoption and it really has to be overturned," she said.

'Support needed'

Tony Trimingham's son died 10 years ago from a heroin overdose. He is now the CEO of the Family Drug Support organisation and he is appalled by the committee's recommendations.

"I could have actually cried this morning when I read the recommendations and some of the report," he said.

"They've ignored the pleas of families where it was said we need to keep our children alive, we need to keep them supported until they can turn the corner that they eventually need to turn."

He says he fears the worst if the committee's recommendations are implemented.

"I think there will be more death, more disease, more crime. I think families will be more sidelined," he said.

"One of the things that we face, and we stressed this in our submission to the committee, is that we face isolation and shame and stigma."

Workers on the frontline are also worried about the direction the committee is taking.

Claerwen Little, from the support service Uniting Care Burnside, says zero-tolerance will not work and what is needed is a whole family approach.

"We believe the most important criteria for funding the support agencies is about making a difference and improving the lives of the children and families," she said.

"I don't think it's helpful at all to push a particular ideological barrow in that I think people are very different and need different approaches."

The report has now gone to federal minister responsible, Christopher Pyne, who will consider the recommendations.

[nabraxas]

Heil Bronwyn,

Full of Intolerance,

The Law is with thee.

Edited September 14, 2007 by nabraxas

[Auntyjack]

The report has now gone to federal minister responsible, Christopher Pyne, who will consider the recommendations.

What perspective do you think Christopher Payne will take?

"There is this entrenched attitude in the bureaucracy [of] anti-adoption and it really has to be overturned," she said.

Does this mean the sanctity of the family is secondary to being tough on drugs? Stupid move IMO, family organisations are a powerful lobby.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Auntyjack

[shruman]

Realy?, I hear theres an election coming soon...

More fear mongering that does nothing for those with the problem.

[Ace]

Great, just what junkies need - less safe areas to get them off the gear... And adopting out junkies kiddies? So does that mean that every parent who smokes pot will end up being outcast and having their kids taken away? WTF?

More graphic advertising - well, I think that could be a good thing - depending on how its done. If it comes back to dramatisation of something like a pot head, then it obviously wont work and there is no real need for it (except for those in the vice of pot, which isnt all that common anyway). Compared to more full on depictions of ice junkies or amph-heads on a binge, yeah, that would be ok, provided it wasnt completely ridiculous. Facts are what change peoples minds, not dramatised play ups of lies, no matter what the intentions were.

I'm all for getting rid of the actual dangers to society and families - H, coke, meth, amphs, etc, but you know that they will play up on everything, including the relatively harmless things like pot, which would be ridiculous IMO. Hmm, it'd be interesting to see just how much these people know about the substances they are demonising - such as the incredibly long history of mankinds use of cannabis, including its uses in medicine and recreation...

Gets ya goat, but there is always going to be twats like this who have had a bad experience with no knowledge of the actual facts, forcing their opinions on others...

[mu!]

(except for those in the vice of pot, which isnt all that common anyway)

hahaha. Do you mean common among the general population, or among the population of pot users?

Edited September 14, 2007 by mu.

[Ace]

A bit of both. Would you tend to agree or disagree? I know it does get a lot of people psychologially adicted (tho not phsyically with extreme withdrawal symptoms other than maybe a bit of uneasy sleep or whatnot), but that is still fairly limited in the general population as well as the recreational/self medicating pot community AFAIK... Of course there is a lot of people who use it constantly and it does take over their lives, but most people (IME) only use it from time to time and have enough common sense to step back and see what its effects are having on their lifes (and those around them).

[PD.]

I was gonna write a big reply but to make it simple, that is the most ridiculous fucking thing i have read in a long time.

Frustration. How in gods name does a person of such little intelligence and insight into the problems of drugs get on any sort of committee, i wouldnt even let her make me a cup of tea ffs.

[Kenny Blister]

i wouldnt even let her make me a cup of tea ffs

Not if it's going to be as weak as this stance.

What perspective do you think Christopher Payne will take?

Did you mean to write 'Payne'? Funny nevertheless. He is my local MP and a dick to boot. A religious and anti-drug zealot that will undoubtedly tow Bishop's zero tolerance line. Mia Handshin is the Labor MP opposing him...yum...

[gerbil]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/13/2032435.htm

A federal parliamentary committee has come down harder than ever on the "Just say no" side of the argument.

It has recommended the Government stop funding harm minimisation services, wants an even more graphic advertising campaign launched and proposed adopting out the children of drug addicts.

Oh right, just like white fellas 'adopted' all those indigenous children because their parents were unfit savages. Encore governments, encore. I couldn't bring myself to read any more than those two lines of drivel. Define drug addict you habitual coffee sippin' wankers.

If they are genuine about whatever shit they spit then ban ALL 'drugs', get ALL alcohol and tobacco off the shelf ASAP and then start of sugar and salt. Zero tolerance? HARDLY.

oh fuck wait, it's only legislated substances that are dangerous (besides when they need to use the exact molecule in western medicine!), how silly of me.

It would be nice for them to at least have the guts to publicly address the fact that mammalian bodies produce a range of legislated 'dangerous' molecules.

[blangschpeer]

What next? May I propose mandatory minimum sentences?

[chilli]

And adopting out junkies kiddies? So does that mean that every parent who smokes pot will end up being outcast and having their kids taken away? WTF?

Hardly, bit of a jump in logic there I reckon.

[Ace]

How do you figure? Cannabis is a 'hard' drug in most peoples opinions (even though it is on par with a 'fairly safe' and legal one - alcohol) and would almost certainly be included in the same light as those of truly harder substances (like heroin, opium, cocaine, ampetamines, etc, etc) if this 'zero tolerance' attitude is to prevail. I know of serveral people with kids and grandkids (some of which are a ripe old age and still occasionally having a smoke) that like to relax with a little pot, but will they have their kids taken off them just because they enjoy winding down after a long day, or they want to have some fun with their friends or partners? Do they deserve to be behind bars for even a couple weeks if they have never engaged in trafficking/dealing, only perhaps growing a plant or two or obtaining small quantities through close friends in similar situations? I hardly think so - like Gerbil said - if they are going to play the 'zero tolerance' card, then they will have to pull alcohol and tobacco off the shelves (which they wont do because they know there will be a huge revolt, as happened back in the 1920's in America [or some time around then - cant remember dates]).

The whole drug attitude needs to be re-thought in Western society, perticularly ours. Cannabis (in case you couldnt tell, I get a bit passionate about the banning of this one...) is simply not as dangerous as that of heroin, coke and crystal meth (among others). Hell, I even believe that there are less negative effects than that of regular alcohol consumtion (especially if the pot is eaten, not smoked). The whole thing needs to be re-arranged to have those with the highest dangers to those partaking and those directly effected by the partaking as those with the highest punishments. Social fears and opinions cannot over-rule and place relatively harmless things (which are very commonly used by a huge anount of the population) on par with those that are truly dangerous and damaging.

I could rant on for days, and I'm sure my views have their faults too, but I think its pretty obvious that this 'all drugs are equally bad' opinion is just pathetically draconian and downright useless. Lets hope there are plenty of free gaol cells if they ever plan to go to this extreme...

[XipeTotec]

How do you figure? Cannabis is a 'hard' drug in most peoples opinions (even though it is on par with a 'fairly safe' and legal one - alcohol)

i wouldnt put the 2 on a par... alcohol is likely the most socially destructive drug known to man.

[Ace]

i wouldnt put the 2 on a par (alcohol and cannabis)... alcohol is likely the most socially destructive drug known to man.

Totally agree Xipe. While it can be great for a bit of unwinding or sharing good times with mates, it has a very dark side to it. At the same time, so does cannabis - it is also great for relaxation, medatation, partying with friends, etc, but it too can consume one's life if its use becomes habitual (the reason why I believe they are on par [as well as them being fairly similar in effect]). That said, you cant go that far over the top on pot that you wind up in hospital with liver poisoning, needing your stomach pumped just to keep you alive and funtional...

Socially, I think the two are very similar with the only main differences being social attitude, history, origins, legality, economic value, safety and stigma. Funny that cannabis is much safer to use even in large amounts; it has been used for millenia as a medicine, a sacrament and for recreation; it was used for centuries as one of the West's biggest cash crops (hemp) but that is now something of yesteryear (mainly because of stigma related to THC [not even anything to do with hemp], but also because of costs and machinery used); its banning was sparked because of unjust racism towards Mexicans who smoked it and 'didn't pull their weight' even though they were on minimum wage ; and yet alcohol is more socially accepted because the western governments have forced that opinion on the masses because of unjust prohibition (which going back on now and legalising would show that the gov's have been flawed in their portaying of cannabis over the last century) and a swap of economical importance between cannabis (both as a medicine, sacrament and recreational drug as well as a fibre and oil producing plant) and alcohol (a recreational fdrug with no use other than pulling in cash for the big-wigs).

Has alcohol ever been used spiritually, medicinally or sacramentally? Hardly. What would you prefer - something that grows very naturally in soil, or something that comes from fermenting fruits and grains and is made by man (and can put you in hospital after one too many)?

Edited September 18, 2007 by Ace

[blangschpeer]

Has alcohol ever been used spiritually, medicinally or sacramentally?

What about the Bacchus/Dionysis cults of ancient rome and greece? They'd eat and drink til they were about to explode, then they'd have their orgy and spew their guts up. Just like a first year uni student living on campus.... I miss those days

[Ace]

Haha - that's a good point Blangschpeer! Looks like people have been partying hard for many centuries (though I am not sure if there was much spiritual meaning behind it, but I could be wrong). If only there were more intoxicated orgies these days

[Auxin]

Has alcohol ever been used spiritually, medicinally or sacramentally? Hardly.

Yeah just those little groups that call themselves 'christians' 'catholics' 'jews' 'wiccans' etc.. only accounts for about half a billion people

To be fair I dont know how central it is in wicca... I just know a group of wiccans invited me to one of their fertility celebrations and vodka punch was consumed by all prior to the dancing.

[Ace]

Good point Auxin - I had forgotten about the sacraficial use of bread and wine in many religious scenes. But it probably should be noted that it isnt used to the point of intoxication (AFAIK), as intoxication is frequently against many religions. I wonder if another reason why alcohol is preferred over pot - because wine is used in christianity as a sacrament. Funny how the US is mainly christian and they also have the most power over Western countries... I wonder if there is a connection to that as well as the control over smaller civilisation's use of other sacraments (as had happened to the Mexicans when the Spaniards invaded and prohibited the use of mushrooms because they feared them)? I'm just speculating and I appologise for the above statement where I said that I dont think alcohol had been used religiously (I had honestly forgot about the use of wine as a representation of blood).