- Joined
- Mar 12, 2002
- Messages
- 4,414
I tend to live in hope. Yes, most of the time, the government doesn't really get the perspective of drug users. They may have pre-conceived ideas - stereotypes - about what drug users do or are. I think we have to keep trying to show people in power the truth, and participating in research is just one way to do that.
One of the benefits of the PDI/EDRS in my opinion is that it consistently shows that people who fit the criteria of regular ecstasy use, all around Australia, are generally well-adjusted employed or studying people - ie. contributing members of our society. Researchers like me can cite this study as solid evidence of that, when faced with the stereotype of drug use = no-hoper junky, etc etc
One of the disadvantages is that it could be used by law enforcement. Even then, not everything LE do is necessarily bad. Believe it or not, there are some cops that are enlightened when it comes to these matters. Educating them is important too.
Hm, I'm not sure I can think of a time when the government used EDRS/PDI for the good of users, because for almost all of the project's life, we have had a conservative fed govt which just wouldn't have gone down that path. we are yet to see how Rudd & co responds. They have a few larger things looming in their minds at the moment I think!
Can anyone else comment on this issue in their countries? How does research feed into govt practice elsewhere?
PS. as for changing the name, 'party drugs' is a term that the previous fed govt explicitly did not agree with... I have news articles saved to that effect. I have this term in my running title for my phd so also need to remain aware of that kind of censorship. I can't speak for why the name changed, but these were the circumstances at the time. Also, ecstasy & co. aren't always used to party, so perhaps it was also about accuracy to take out the reference to partying. those are my educated guesses
One of the benefits of the PDI/EDRS in my opinion is that it consistently shows that people who fit the criteria of regular ecstasy use, all around Australia, are generally well-adjusted employed or studying people - ie. contributing members of our society. Researchers like me can cite this study as solid evidence of that, when faced with the stereotype of drug use = no-hoper junky, etc etc
One of the disadvantages is that it could be used by law enforcement. Even then, not everything LE do is necessarily bad. Believe it or not, there are some cops that are enlightened when it comes to these matters. Educating them is important too.
Hm, I'm not sure I can think of a time when the government used EDRS/PDI for the good of users, because for almost all of the project's life, we have had a conservative fed govt which just wouldn't have gone down that path. we are yet to see how Rudd & co responds. They have a few larger things looming in their minds at the moment I think!
Can anyone else comment on this issue in their countries? How does research feed into govt practice elsewhere?
PS. as for changing the name, 'party drugs' is a term that the previous fed govt explicitly did not agree with... I have news articles saved to that effect. I have this term in my running title for my phd so also need to remain aware of that kind of censorship. I can't speak for why the name changed, but these were the circumstances at the time. Also, ecstasy & co. aren't always used to party, so perhaps it was also about accuracy to take out the reference to partying. those are my educated guesses