• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Former NSW premiere Bob Carr backing Australia's first ice smoking room

I see the merits in this plan, but "ice smoking" is nothing like "heroin injecting" - so supervised rooms or whatever seems kinda weird.

The supervised injecting centre isn't a "heroin injecting room". You can inject anything you like there - a lot of their clients are already using the service to consume meth and, last time I checked out their stats, their biggest client group was people injecting diverted pharmaceuticals, not heroin.

These kind of programs have been tried many times before, from what I remember the results are almost universally negative. It just doesn't work thanks to the differences between amphetamine addiction and opioid addiction.

There's a methamphetamine substitution program running out of St Vincent's in Sydney that uses dexamphetamine. It's been evaluated as a success and there are plans for duplication at other sites.
 
I've never been to Australia but I'm constantly fascinated by the bipolar approach to drug policy there. On some things there seems to be progress--a supervised injection site already open, movement on medical cannabis, and now this. But there's so many other facets that don't really make sense--renewed emphasis on public police searches, drug dogs at events, etc..

Is it just different provincial governments or is the national government just taking a very splintered approach? Help an American understand...
 
Mate I live here and don't really know the answer. I think with some of the laws and regulations it's just because of a strict (religious?) conservative government and the way they wont to do things, they are mostly old people.

On the flip side some of our sentences for large scale drug dealing or production are not nearly as strict as the USA has been I think.

The supervised injection centre in Kings Cross was fought hard for by many people to get it and on the flip side many people were dead set against having it, it's the only one in Australia I believe.

A lot of people here hate drugs and wont stricter drug laws and less HR initiatives. Labelling anyone who does any type of illegal drug a junkie dog and other such nonsense.

Some of NSW (a state) leaders in politics and police chiefs are very anti weed and other drugs and often I think they are corrupted to think this way because they wont weed to continue to be deemed as very much illegal and dangerous so they can continue getting so much funding for things such as crop eradication, sniffer dogs, more cops, more cars, toys etc etc.

It seems to me that NSW and the police have progressively become more and more strict and agro since the Sydney 2000 olympics which we would have no doubt had more cops for and ever since they've wonted to keep up those cop numbers using other excuses or reasons such as terrorism as well.

I dont know, but that's my take on it right now. Others will no doubt disagree and think other ways.
 
I've never been to Australia but I'm constantly fascinated by the bipolar approach to drug policy there. On some things there seems to be progress--a supervised injection site already open, movement on medical cannabis, and now this. But there's so many other facets that don't really make sense--renewed emphasis on public police searches, drug dogs at events, etc..

Is it just different provincial governments or is the national government just taking a very splintered approach? Help an American understand...

Ummmm....my response to this would be that we have many people here working hard under our "official national policy" of "harm minimisation" - and they do a great job.
Things like needle exchanges were pioneered in australia by doctors and other public health workers who made it possible by engaging in civil disobedience, and supplying sharps kits illegally.
In the end, legislators saw that the work they were doing (providing clean injecting equipment for users) was doing more good in the community than harm, so these sorts of things became accepted socially and legally.

On the other hand, we have some very neo-con goverments that push that bullshit tough on drugs line like the dogma it is.
So...we have both sides of the coin.

It's a similar paradox to the vast differences between, say drug policy in Colorado and Texas (or, at least cannabis legislation) - just on a smaller scale, with the influence of sensationalist media that loves to jump on any "drug scare" story they can.

I think backwards policing cultures are also part of the mix.

But yeah, it's baffling. We have things so good here, but the general public are really easily conned into voting against their best interests, so we end up with these 1950s value systems being projected onto contemporary drug policy.
It's embarassing and frustrating.

But...i believe some of the earliest Australian efforts to enact drug law reform were stifled by our "relationship" (sub/dom) with the United States govt. :(
 
Mate I live here and don't really know the answer. I think with some of the laws and regulations it's just because of a strict (religious?) conservative government and the way they wont to do things, they are mostly old people.

On the flip side some of our sentences for large scale drug dealing or production are not nearly as strict as the USA has been I think.

The supervised injection centre in Kings Cross was fought hard for by many people to get it and on the flip side many people were dead set against having it, it's the only one in Australia I believe.

A lot of people here hate drugs and wont stricter drug laws and less HR initiatives. Labelling anyone who does any type of illegal drug a junkie dog and other such nonsense.

Some of NSW (a state) leaders in politics and police chiefs are very anti weed and other drugs and often I think they are corrupted to think this way because they wont weed to continue to be deemed as very much illegal and dangerous so they can continue getting so much funding for things such as crop eradication, sniffer dogs, more cops, more cars, toys etc etc.

It seems to me that NSW and the police have progressively become more and more strict and agro since the Sydney 2000 olympics which we would have no doubt had more cops for and ever since they've wonted to keep up those cop numbers using other excuses or reasons such as terrorism as well.

I dont know, but that's my take on it right now. Others will no doubt disagree and think other ways.

Yet getting shit faced (drunk) and drink driving home causing an accident or king hitting someone seems to be tolerated.
 
There's a methamphetamine substitution program running out of St Vincent's in Sydney that uses dexamphetamine. It's been evaluated as a success and there are plans for duplication at other sites.

That's interesting, I'd love to see the results. I'm not opposed to amphetamine substitution on general grounds, I just know it's been tried many, many times and, as far as I'm aware, has yet to produce results that justify instituting it on a large scale ala. methadone/suboxone. I'd be happy to be wrong on that count that, anything that can help people struggling with meth addiction would be a real blessing.

Yeah that last paragraph is a great idea.

Sadly it would almost certainly never happen - "blah blah blah enabling drug addicts blah blah blah drawing scumbags to the neighborhood blah blah blah can't just give them more drugs etc etc etc."
 
The program that's been rolled out in NSW has a really strong psychosocial support element - it's not just treating dependency/withdrawal symptoms with a daily dose of medicine, like the methadone program often is. I agree with you that substitution pharmacotherapy alone is unlikely to be effective for people with problematic methamphetamine use, at least unless we find a more effective pharmacotherapy option. When coupled with appropriate counselling and social support, though, the St Vincent's clients who were enrolled in the substitution program had better outcomes than those just doing counselling alone. From memory, they only put people on substitution who have previously failed at counselling-only attempts to cease using.
 
Why more drug consumption rooms are a must

The tragic situation of Harriet Wran, daughter of the late NSW Labor premier, Neville Wran, recently received saturation media coverage. Spiralling problems with ice ended with Ms Wran pleading guilty to accessory after the fact of murder and robbery in company.

In the sentence hearings in court, Harriet Wran revealed the personal demons she has been fighting for many years. She will not be the last person to turn to alcohol and other drugs to get relief from personal demons only to find heaven in the short term and hell in the long term.

More than 30 years ago, Rosalyn Hawke, daughter of the Labor (then) Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, attracted considerable media as her battle with heroin became public knowledge. At the time the public were astonished drug problems could involve the child of a Prime Minister.

The serious problems of Harriet Wran now and Rosalyn Hawke then demonstrated to the community that a privileged background was no protection from serious drug problems.

While the reality is that drug problems are more common in young men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds, even for young Australians from privileged backgrounds finding effective treatment for their drug problems is usually extremely difficult.

But for young Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, drug treatment is even harder to find and when found, there are usually long queues.

The Ice Task Force recommended a much greater investment in treatment for people struggling with drug problems. It has been obvious for decades that Australian governments have been skimping on funding for drug treatment while generously funding the criminal justice system, including spending massive amounts on money on customs, police, courts, prisons and parole.

Drug treatment is slow and difficult work but there are benefits from supporting people with drug problems. In contrast, it is much harder to find significant and sustainable benefits from law enforcement approaches. Announcing responses to the Ice Task Force report on December 6, 2015, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said: "We cannot arrest our way to success, we need to do a lot more."

Recently 7.30 on ABC TV described the increasing use of Drug Consumption Rooms in Switzerland and Germany. These resemble the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Sydney's Kings Cross but as inhalation of drugs has been slowly replacing drug injecting in Europe, the newer European "Safe Rooms" can also accommodate people who want to inhale drug vapour rather than inject drugs.

Obviously, it would be much better if addicts stopped using drugs altogether but often stopping requires many tiny "baby steps" rather than just one heroic overnight jump. The Europeans also place much more emphasis on the social re-integration of drug users by providing training in employable skills.

Drug Consumption Rooms for injecting reduce deaths and non-fatal drug overdoses. They also reduce the spread of blood-borne viral infections such as HIV and hepatitis C, increase referral to drug treatment and other health and social interventions while also improving the amenity of neighbourhoods where there is a great deal of drug dealing.

There is a lot of research, mainly from Sydney and Vancouver, confirming the substantial benefits and financial savings from Safe Rooms. Yet despite the impressive benefits and lack of significant adverse effects of Sydney's Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, after 15 years Australia still has only one such centre.

It's well and truly time we opened more Drug Consumption Rooms in our major cities and in some of our larger regional centres. New centres should also be able to handle people who inhale ice, a drug about which the community rightly remains concerned.

It is important to realise Safe Centres provide a portal for drug users to enter the drug treatment system.

Most of the people who attend Drug Consumption Rooms are severely damaged by their drug use with serious physical and mental health problems and are isolated. Most have never been anywhere near a health or social agency or if they have, not for a long time. Many are homeless and most are socially and economically disadvantaged.

Australia's imprisonment rate is about twice that of Germany. But Germany has almost 30 Drug Consumption Rooms. As it costs almost $100,000 per prisoner per year, the additional money Germany spends on Drug Consumption Rooms helps it to achieve significant savings in prison expenditure.

Since he became Prime Minister, Turnbull has been exhorting Australians to become more agile and innovative. Given the huge amount of taxpayers' money spent on drug law enforcement with little sign of gain, and the huge benefits of Safe Rooms, it is time that Australian governments showed some signs of nimbleness and innovation by expanding and improving alcohol and drug treatment.

At the very least, throughout Australia, we should be opening a network of Drug Consumption Rooms where they are most needed and where local communities will accept them. As rock star Kinky Friedman once remarked when running for Governor of Texas, "How hard can it be?"

Professor Ross Fitzgerald was a member of the Queensland Parole Board and the NSW State Parole Authority for 20 years. He is the author of 39 books, including his memoir My name is Ross: An alcoholic's journey, which is available as an e-Book and a Talking Book from Vision Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-more-drug-consumption-rooms-are-a-must-20160719-gq95sa.html
 
I am all for injecting rooms, pill testing and pretty much any harm reduction idea under the sun. However, I am struggling with the practical reality of this idea and just cannot see it functioning in the way that these entirely well meaning professionals naively assume that it will.

Injecting rooms, whether for heroin, amphetamines or pretty much any other drug, do make perfect sense. People go into the facility, have their hit, hopefully walk out in one piece, and get on with their day. The single and generally quick process of injection is over in minutes and it should be quite a number of hours before an IV drug user would need to even think about their bag of drugs again.

Smoking methamphetamine from a pipe is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is repeated over and over, with the pipe never far away. It is generally consumed behind closed doors and often where two or more people spend inordinate amounts of time in the one place, passing the pipe between them, which when they don't otherwise have a pipe shoved in their gob, are babbling absolute crap to whoever might be listening. If they have a few bowls and get on their way after that, it won't be long before they are back and wanting to light up again.

These facilities might make sense for people unfortunate enough to not have a home or safe place to go to for smoking meth but if they prove popular they are going to pretty quickly reach a constant level of capacity; a facility which may begin to resemble an unstable mix of loose Dutch backpacker hostel, unusually chatty and upbeat homeless shelter, and regional airport lounge where the passengers are flying higher than the planes despite not travelling anywhere in half a day.

Having an IV shot of a drug is quite a private activity for most people and an injecting room is definitely not the sort of place people would otherwise enjoy sitting in and passing the time away. Smoking the drug couldn't be more different - it can be very social, with large groups of people passing the tools around, and drugs being shared, traded and scabbed willy nilly. Hangers on looking to freeload are likely to be a constant and irritating presence, the constant opportunity of being on the end of a "toke" from some random never far away.

After a few hours with my best friends on this drug, I am often over their company. I can't imagine how some people, with an emotional range from the eccentric to the explosive on a good day, will go sitting with people they do not know and will inevitably distrust, for hours on end. The image I have is of an overcrowded asylum where the longer people stay in there, the worse the mental health of all of them becomes. The opposite of what the smoking rooms set out to achieve.

Sorry if this last comment causes offence and I do regret being so pessimistic, but this is all I can envisage at this stage. Hopefully I am proved wrong.
 
Last edited:
Smoking methamphetamine from a pipe is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is repeated over and over, with the pipe never far away. It is generally consumed behind closed doors and often where two or more people spend inordinate amounts of time in the one place, passing the pipe between them, which when they don't otherwise have a pipe shoved in their gob, are babbling absolute crap to whoever might be listening. If they have a few bowls and get on their way after that, it won't be long before they are back and wanting to light up again.

I think that's pretty accurate and a good/interesting point, actually
 
I am all for injecting rooms, pill testing and pretty much any harm reduction idea under the sun. However, I am struggling with the practical reality of this idea and just cannot see it functioning in the way that these entirely well meaning professionals naively assume that it will.

Injecting rooms, whether for heroin, amphetamines or pretty much any other drug, do make perfect sense. People go into the facility, have their hit, hopefully walk out in one piece, and get on with their day. The single and generally quick process of injection is over in minutes and it should be quite a number of hours before an IV drug user would need to even think about their bag of drugs again.

Smoking methamphetamine from a pipe is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is repeated over and over, with the pipe never far away. It is generally consumed behind closed doors and often where two or more people spend inordinate amounts of time in the one place, passing the pipe between them, which when they don't otherwise have a pipe shoved in their gob, are babbling absolute crap to whoever might be listening. If they have a few bowls and get on their way after that, it won't be long before they are back and wanting to light up again.

These facilities might make sense for people unfortunate enough to not have a home or safe place to go to for smoking meth but if they prove popular they are going to pretty quickly reach a constant level of capacity; a facility which may begin to resemble an unstable mix of loose Dutch backpacker hostel, unusually chatty and upbeat homeless shelter, and regional airport lounge where the passengers are flying higher than the planes despite not travelling anywhere in half a day.

Having an IV shot of a drug is quite a private activity for most people and an injecting room is definitely not the sort of place people would otherwise enjoy sitting in and passing the time away. Smoking the drug couldn't be more different - it can be very social, with large groups of people passing the tools around, and drugs being shared, traded and scabbed willy nilly. Hangers on looking to freeload are likely to be a constant and irritating presence, the constant opportunity of being on the end of a "toke" from some random never far away.

After a few hours with my best friends on this drug, I am often over their company. I can't imagine how some people, with an emotional range from the eccentric to the explosive on a good day, will go sitting with people they do not know and will inevitably distrust, for hours on end. The image I have is of an overcrowded asylum where the longer people stay in there, the worse the mental health of all of them becomes. The opposite of what the smoking rooms set out to achieve.

Sorry if this last comment causes offence and I do regret being so pessimistic, but this is all I can envisage at this stage. Hopefully I am proved wrong.

The MSIC has some pretty strict rules about sharing. Under their current injecting-only arrangement, you're not allowed to share or freeload or provide another person with substances inside the premises. I don't imagine they'd change things to allow people to pass a pipe around a group - it would still be one person, one administration.
 
Top