• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: The Age - 3/10/2006 'Thousands avoid drug sentences'

hoptis

hoptis

Bluelight Crew
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
11,083
Thousands avoid drug sentences
October 3, 2006 - 12:12PM

More than 15,000 illegal drug users in Victoria have been given a second chance in a program diverting them from the justice system into treatment.

A new report released today shows 15,477 Victorians avoided a criminal record as a result of a drug treatment diversion program that began in 2000.

The report, launched by Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, details the results of a combined state and federal initiative, which includes a range of programs to tackle drug use.

The initiative aims to acknowledge drug use as a health program and get people into treatment and back into the community.

Launching the report, Mrs Nixon said the initiative provided an opportunity for health and law enforcement agencies to work hand-in-hand to tackle drug use as a social, health and policing issue.

"I have no doubt this intervention has saved lives and prevented further crimes," she said.

The diversion program is available to people who have been arrested for an illicit drug-related activity or an offence where the person's drug use is a clear factor in their offending.

It can include a range of drug treatments, from education through to counselling, drug withdrawal and rehabilitation, with the overall goal to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system and drug-related crime.

Under the program, a person arrested for using or possessing a small amount of cannabis can be cautioned and offered the chance to attend an education session instead of appearing before a court.

Alternatively, a person arrested for using or possessing other illegal drugs is cautioned on the condition they will undertake a drug assessment and start drug treatment, and this happens within five days of arrest.

The report, A Better Way Forward, shows 66 per cent of participants completed their treatment.

But Ms Nixon warned it was still an offence to use or possess illicit drugs in Victoria and it was up to individuals to control whether they would reoffend.

"These programs enable police to refer illicit drug users to timely health interventions," she said.

"It is then up to that individual if they choose to accept a lifeline."

Victorian Chief Magistrate Ian Gray said the diversion program gave magistrates a greater range of sentencing options and also resulted in a safer community.

AAP
Click to expand...

The Age
 
"It is then up to that individual if they choose to accept a lifeline."
Click to expand...

While I'm all for diversion programs for minor possession offences, the idea that sending people to an "education" session is going to save their lives is a bit far fetched.

I guess this is the best we can expect though from a system that continues to believe that there is no such thing as non-problematic usage of illicit drugs.

Also, it's far better than we could expect from a more socially conservative government.
 
Probably good news, better than a criminal record :\
If I got done for possesion or something and had to attend some "program" I'd be listening SO hard! hahahaha, it'd be like, "common when's this shit finish I've been hanging for a cone all day!!"
 
^^ yah me to im one of 15,477 people put into the program, thanks to bluelight and erowid i ended up telling the drug counselor about the finer points of some drug, i knew more than she did :p
 
Credit

As well as the Diversion Program I think they are also talking about the CREDIT Program. CREDIT stands for Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment which is offered by the Magistrates Court.

http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugservices/services/fs_credit.htm said:
Court Referral & Evaluation for Drug Intervention & Treatment (CREDIT)

Where Police apprehend and charge a person with an offence and it is clear that the person has an immediately presenting drug problem, the Police are able to refer to the CREDIT program as part of the bail proceedings. The Police refer the offender to a Drug Clinician based at the Magistrates Court and, where appropriate and the offender agrees, he or she is diverted into a recommended treatment regime by the Magistrate as a condition of bail.

The CREDIT program is open to all age groups and stages of drug use, and is open to first time offenders along with those with some previous criminal and/or drug use history. To be eligible for the CREDIT program, the offender must be charged with a non-violent offence, have an illicit drug problem, be released on bail, be initially bailed to a court where the CREDIT program operates and not subject to any other court order with a drug treatment component.

This is the statement made when the program started: http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/We...6b426ec684a25667a008313a2!OpenDocument&Click=
Click to expand...

That little blurb doesn't do the program justice. I have actually used this program and I honestly don't think I would have gotten the sentence I did if it wasn't for CREDIT. My solicitor referred me. It isn't the bull shit drug education class that you get with Diversion. My program consisted of seeing a drug and alcohol counsellor weekly and seeing the court counsellor every fortnight. Both my counsellors were awesome. My drug and alcohol counsellor was especially funny, she didn't believe in abstinence from drugs.

I just think it's awesome that programs like these are offered.

NB: Sorry to sound so soppy but it's late and my weekend is just finishing and my brain has just had enough.
 
NB: Sorry to sound so soppy...
Click to expand...

Not at all. It's always good to hear from someone who thinks these programs are effective. I too believe they will deter/help some people, if not with drug use directly then at least with realising the relative risks of certain behaviors.
 
I think most of it is a waste of time. Most of the drug users the catch probably arn't problematic and wasteing valuable drug rehab and education money is pointless. At least it is better then getting a criminal record. Instead you just sit through a boring lecture where they tell you again that drugs are bad and your a bad person for touching them which wastes everyones time because the people in that room have already experenced the effects. It is a better alternitive then a criminal sentence, punishing psudocriminals for what they do for fun.

How many BLers here would give up drugs if you were caught with a little bit of weed or a few pills on you and have to go to a drug diversion progrom?

Not me.
 
^ You'll be pleased to know most of the diversion programs for minor drug offences in Australian states are geared towards harm reduction and not abstinence.

Sometimes the content varies depending on the agency providing the service, but here in Qld the official government programs will tell people to buy nice glass pipes / bongs and bake some mull cookies once in a while to reduce the harms from smoking pot.

Most bluelighters seem surprised that people who actually work in the alcohol and other drug field are usually very supportive of harm reduction. The exceptions are the (minority) religious nut jobs, but the mainstream alcohol and other drug sector is dominated by supporters of harm reduction.
 
I think its really good. I dont think its aimed at the average BLer who has at least heard of the term 'Harm Reduction' and has a fair idea that smoking meth carries different risks to popping an e.

I wouldnt underestimate the shock value on the average nieve user when they are arrested, sentenced, threatened with jail then bombarded with information about what they are doing. Even if 1 in 10 gets something from it, its still better than sitting in jail.
 
^ Definitely better than jail! And it reflects an attempt at a policy level to reframe drug use as a health issue, rather than a legal one.

I'm pretty sure the report is only talking about diversion - not CREDIT. But CREDIT does reflect the same type of thinking. Heard a presentation last week from a US academic - he said that more people are in prison in the US for non-violent drug-related offences than the entire prison population of Europe 8o

I have tried to download this report, but not sure who produced it. Damn media releases never link to the documents in question !!! My impression of diversion is that police exercise discretion as to who they divert - not many people get diverted for heroin possession!
 
I guess there are two groups who'll benefit from this. The newbie or minor users who get a huge fright from being arrested and judicialised, get counselling, and either go clean as a result or at least get a clue. And serious users who were feeling out of control in their usage, who take the opportunity to get counselling and use it as impetus to get clean.

The point about these programs is they ramp up the consequences if you're ever caught a second time. The users here who say "pfft as if I'd change just because of this program" don't take the brutality of the legal system seriously enough...
 
The argument of course is that in some instances the individual may actually be more inclined to re-offend, as any reduced impact of the (initial) offence could well lessen the perceived severity of the charge i.e. how serious the offence was regarded.

Then there's how the individual perceives the health risks associated with the drug, or even other drugs for which a first penalty is similar. In part at least, this comes down to the effectiveness of the educational part of the diversion program.

But can a single informative session on it's own - where most of it is spent watching a video - really hope to reform most users, particularly those already informed/ educated to a level beyond that of the program?

I don't wish to put shit on the idea of diversion. Quite the contrary. However, without a follow up study (which is not solely based on the number of re-offenders, it's really difficult to know whether some users are choosing to abstain completely from drugs, or simply re-offending but being extra careful....

Perhaps a comparison of the percentages of re-offenders before and after commencement of the diversion program would shed some light, but that alone would hardly be conclusive. While there would be some logistical difficulties, a better idea would be to follow up offenders with a questionnaire some 6-12 months later.
 
For me, diversion programs seem like a pragmatic strategy to ameliorate some of the negative impacts of a prohibitionist regulatory regime.

Legal sanctions for personal drug use are basically a waste of time - making someone watch a video isn't going to teach them jack, and sending someone to jail is positively harmful.

In an ideal world, personal use of drugs would not be a criminal offence. However, given that it is a criminal offence, if we can keep people out of jail, it gives other strategies a chance to make a difference.

We can't expect the legal system to help people with their drug use. But we can modify the legal system so it doesn't fuck people up, thus giving other approaches a better chance (these "other approaches" of course include BL)
 
For me, diversion programs seem like a pragmatic strategy to ameliorate some of the negative impacts of a prohibitionist regulatory regime.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in the minds of most bureaucrats, rehabilitation is also viewed as an important part of the current strategy, a fundamental objective of which (in Qld at least) is to reduce further criminal activity (recidivism). If it were to be found that this objective was not being achieved, then it begs question as to whether the system would continue as it is or whether additional mandatory conditions (urine testing, monitoring, institution based rehab etc) would be introduced.

Of course the anti-prohibition argument would also be supported by such a finding, as it lends weight to the age old belief that people will always take drugs regardless. Problem is, the ball would be in the law makers court, and with present policies receiving relatively little criticism from libertarian politicians, it would seem the introduction of additional conditions would be inevitable. To not do so would in essence be contrary to the current (stated) reasons for having a diversion system.
 
Yes, but in the minds of most bureaucrats, rehabilitation is also viewed as an important part of the current strategy, a fundamental objective of which (in Qld at least) is to reduce further criminal activity (recidivism). If it were to be found that this objective was not being achieved, then it begs question as to whether the system would continue as it is or whether additional mandatory conditions (urine testing, monitoring, institution based rehab etc) would be introduced.
Click to expand...

The system already includes those things -- as part of parole (after gaol sentences) and probation (non-custodial sentences). There would be no point adding them to the diversion program, as it would duplicate probation.

You're right though, it will be interesting to see whether participants in the diversion program have lower rates of recidivism. But rates of recidivism after diversion will be compared with rates of recidivism after prison, which are incredibly high -- hence the description of prison as 'crime school'.
 
^Exactly - it wouldn't be hard to get a better result than the prison system. Unfortunately, policy decisions are most likely to be framed around the primary objective for bureaucrats/politicians - staying in power. Evidence doesn't really have much to do with it. What would really cruel the pitch for diversion would be a tabloid front-pager about a diverted drug user going on to rape a granny while high on crystal meth. Then all the peer reviewed journal articles in the world couldn't save poor diversion.
 
ayjay said:
^Exactly - it wouldn't be hard to get a better result than the prison system. Unfortunately, policy decisions are most likely to be framed around the primary objective for bureaucrats/politicians - staying in power. Evidence doesn't really have much to do with it. What would really cruel the pitch for diversion would be a tabloid front-pager about a diverted drug user going on to rape a granny while high on crystal meth. Then all the peer reviewed journal articles in the world couldn't save poor diversion.
Click to expand...

Bureaucrats cop a lot of flak, but I've worked in the community health sector and I've met plenty of department employees who really do give a damn about health outcomes for at-risk communities. Plus they don't need to worry about staying in power... And the diversion program itself was launched in the face of a howl of protest from the tabloid press -- because A-G Hulls and the Department of Justice think it's worth doing. The bigger problem is trying to get some action when the pols and the crats don't agree -- compare Bronwyn/DHS on the HIV rates issue.
 
OK I'm being a bit inclusive - delete the word "bureaucrats" from my post and I'll stick by it. Sorry bureaucrats - I don't hate you!! :)
 
Courts `soft on drug users'
Jason Gregory
February 26, 2007 11:00pm

NEARLY 4000 Queenslanders caught with illicit drugs such as heroin, ecstasy or cocaine in the past two years faced a two-hour session with a counsellor instead of jail or a fine.

However, a leading youth worker and the State Opposition said the diversion program would do little to ease the social costs of drug use while offenders were only forced to attend one "woefully inadequate" session with no ongoing monitoring.

Under the Illicit Drugs Court Diversion Program, a magistrate can order first-time minor drug offenders to attend an education session, generally conducted by support agencies such as Drug Arm, and no conviction is recorded. During the two-hour "motivational" interview, offenders are asked to consider health, legal and economic effects of continued use, view a video, write a personal plan and get referrals to other services.

Coalition justice spokesman Mark McArdle said if more rehabilitation facilities and counsellors were not employed immediately "another good initiative could die on the vine".

Figures released to The Courier-Mail show 2152 offenders escaped conviction in 2005, and 1796 last year, after attending the sessions.

Cannabis was the drug of choice for 3082 offenders, while 323 were found with ecstasy, 284 with methamphetamines, 118 with amphetamines, 45 with heroin and 96 with other substances, including cocaine.

Youth Affairs Network director Siyavash Dootskhah said the program was saving millions in court costs and "could be fantastic" but believed a lack of ongoing support, coupled with traditionally high relapse rates, meant some young addicts fell into a life of crime.

"The State Government is wanting to build a $4 billion prison based on statistics predicting a 90 per cent increase in crime in coming years, but a lot of those (offences) will be drug-related," he said.

The department was unable to provide recidivism figures, as the Australian Institute of Criminology was evaluating the data, with a report due mid-year on the joint Commonwealth-state program.

A person can only access the program if caught with 1g or less of ecstasy, heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, 50g of cannabis or the equivalent of three LSD "trips".

Australian National Council on Drugs member and Drug Arm chief executive Dennis Young said the program was helping many who would normally fall through the cracks.

In a prepared statement, Attorney-General Kerry Shine said: "Diversion is not about decriminalisation (but) about preventing a new generation of drug users committing drug-related crimes."
Click to expand...

The Courier Mail
 
I'm pretty sure it kind of works like a bond. ie. If you get caught with drugs again before the time you have to go back to court (either 6 or 12 months), they will force you into some type of rehab program. And you can only get court diversion two times max.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top