Here is a piece I wrote for the AIVL magazine Junkmail, KIssue # 4
Sleeps with the Fishes?: How do we smash the concrete shoes off harm reduction?
By Michael Arnold
That was then….
One of the central reasons for the eruption of the Australian drug users’ movement was the potential for HIV to destroy our community and the wonderful people within it. Drug users organised and rallied to achieve a range of specific services and responses – Needle Syringe Programs, medical services willing to work with drug users living with a blood borne virus, and in particular for the resources needed to carry out peer-based education within our own networks.
While the level of drug user organising and the success of their efforts varied from state to state, there can be little argument that the work of drug user activists and other supporters of harm reduction created programs and influenced attitudes in such a way that HIV transmission rates within the Australian users’ community were lower than virtually anywhere else in the world, and were the envy of many overseas public health officials.
This is now….
In six years of Howard government there have been no qualitative improvements in drug policy, and certainly not in the day-to-day lives of drug users. In fact, the Liberal government hide behind the great initial achievements of harm reduction, and behind the language. Official harm minimisation policy sanctions an ever-increasing assault on users lives, - supply reduction measures include blitzes that result in harassment, arrest, and in users being pushed away from services that have been developed for our benefit, major seizures contribute to the continuation of expensive, poor quality heroin. Supply reduction receives more than 80% of the total amount of Federal government spending on “harm minimisation”.
Further, drug users are bearing the brunt of the policies of austerity and removal of community services in related sectors: mutual obligation and breaching of those on welfare benefits, cuts to the National Dental Health Scheme, and difficulties accessing doctors who bulk-bill. Increasing intolerance, fostered by Fortress Australia policies, sees users from culturally diverse backgrounds wearing a dual burden of discrimination - racism and userphobia. Many of these users are self- medicating in response to intense grief, loneliness and social isolation, and even the memories of torture.
The recent budget will place even more pressure on many drug users. Symptomatic Hep C + users, those living with HIV illness, users in crisis and/or experiencing mental illness, are among those whose rights and living conditions will be targeted so that Fortress Australia can be funded. The prices of prescription medications are rising, and restrictions have been placed on the Disability Support Pension. The impact of stress on both physical and mental illnesses is well documented. The last thing our community members need is extra worry about whether their income is secure.
Smashing the concrete boots - Creating a second wave of drug user activism
Frustration is increasingly evident amongst current drug user activists. The heroin drought appears to have had a significant impact. Financial stresses have increased for many of us. The policy impasse drags on.
The question being posed by many drug user activists is whether or not the organisational and campaigning forms adopted by the drug users’ movement up until now are going to be sufficient to break this impasse.
Firstly, I do not believe that drug users’ groups committed a strategic error in accepting government funding. Australian users needed, and deserved, properly funded and resourced programs; seeing these programs created and implemented had to be the priority of the first wave of the drug users movement. There is no point in organisational autonomy and independence from government if our people are too sick to participate in our organisations and flex the political muscle afforded by independence. While in some areas we have been able to develop useful partnerships, sometimes users are best served by our organisations directly delivering programs.
The structures of those user groups currently in existence have been very successful in developing community networks, sharing knowledge and affecting behaviour change through peer education, and building confidence through providing avenues for users to have ideas and work published or distributed in other ways. Over a long period, through hard work and a demonstrated knowledge of the issues that affect our community, user group workers have managed to gain representation on any number of important committees and enquiries.
Our organisations must be able to continue to deliver peer education programs,
But in my opinion the current forms adopted by the majority of drug user organisations (DUO) will not be able to create the political conditions needed to break the current impasse.
One of the most critical issues for any mass movement is the ability to participate. Any drug user needs to be able to come along to one meeting, and to get involved straight away, volunteering as much or as little time as they are able, and feel inspired, to give. Committee of Management structures, and the simple demands on staff time, often mean that DUO’s do not have the capacity for people to just jump straight in. While efforts should definitely be made to reforming procedures and constitutions in an attempt to expand this capacity, we need other avenues for participation now.
A strong, independent drug user movement of direct action will not threaten the funding of our peer education organisations. In fact, it is the only thing can ensure that our organisations will always be truly safe from the whims of health ministers, and the prying eyes and vicious campaigns of the corporate media. When the Herald Sun spoke out against VIVAIDS and Whack magazine last year, the approach adopted in order to ensure ongoing funding and the existence of the mag, was to essentially fly under the radar, with only a limited media response, and hope it went away, which it did. Next time it may not. How much better to have a separate but allied network that can actively organise users to say, “We demand the right to communicate in ways appropriate for us”?
Drug user activists are now looking for, and experimenting with, new forms that may help build momentum for law reform. In the Top End of the NT, activists have recently formed a community coalition dedicated to taking direct action, the Network Against Prohibition. It has attracted significant community support, but its leaders and activities have also been targeted for police harassment.
This network undoubtedly gives body and life to what many of us believe is a vital next step, and one I believe should be emulated by activists in other cities. I have a number of specific suggestions on the forms and approaches that might be appropriate for this sort of network.
1. It should be a campaigning body, working at a local grassroots level, but with strong national links. AIVL has proposed a national network of drug user activists wanting to commit some time to law reform work. This may prove to be a great way of coordinating actions and staying inspired, but local actions and participation will be particularly important. .
2. We should look to unite people around a few specific demands, and take non-violent direct actions that seek to achieve those demands and educate community members.
3. Drug users should lead. While nobody should be excluded from attending organising meetings and playing an active role, efforts aimed at involving people directly in the day-to-day work and political decision-making should particularly be focused on drug users. The most successful elements of civil and democratic rights campaigns of the 2nd half of the twentieth century – women’s liberation, gays and lesbians, land rights – have been those where people from oppressed and disenfranchised communities have established organisational forms that support activists in coming out and can empower those activists to find their voices and take on leadership positions. There are many influential and articulate supporters of drug law reform – doctors, lawyers, journalists – and while these people could probably not come out if they did use for fear of losing their careers, their support on enquiries, committees, and in the media, is vital. But while many have a significant intellectual and emotional involvement in the issue, they can walk away if they choose. Drug users can’t. Once we gain the confidence and the political know-how, despite and in spite of the massive pressures in our day to day lives, we will be a stronger force than those groups lead by professionals and media stars.
4. Developing links with other activists is vital. At the same time as progressive policy is under attack all over the place, cultures of resistance are becoming reinvigorated, and we should seek to contribute to, and benefit from these as much as possible. NAP’s work in the Northern Territory is certainly setting an example in this regard. Winning support of activists in other movements for social justice is not a straightforward process. Unfortunately, userphobia can be just as prevalent inside the left as it is outside. Having been an activist who used drugs before I was a drug user activist, I saw friends and comrades become the subjects of gossip, psychological abuse, and even violence. Some left-wingers subscribe to the view that “You can’t fight the system when you’re off your face” and believe drugs are used by the ruling class to sow apathy, poverty, illness, and fatigue. While these views are a lot less common than they were ten years ago, as a result of increased social discussion about drug user issues, the visibility of the users’ movement, and the limited connections that have been made, we still have a long way to go. As well as support from those we do win over, being able to draw on the “activist infrastructure” – alternative media outlets and outdoor speaking equipment, for example – will prove invaluable.
5. We should not seek funding for it, whether governmental, business or philanthropic. Drug user activists need a vehicle that allows us to speak as openly and as freely as we require without fearing the loss of funds upon which we will become dependent.
6. The majority of campaigns and activist organisations support themselves through fundraising efforts; particularly benefit gigs, asking for donations to cover costs when actions are held, and through producing and selling items like T-shirts and badges. Fundraising with these latter items has the additional benefit of acting like a roving billboard, increasing the visibility of our issues
7. Established, funded user groups will still have a role to play in promoting drug law reform, indeed it should remain a core activity. It is vital that the formation of independent activist bodies not be seen as letting funded groups off the hook in regards to this work. We need a campaign that organises on as many different levels as possible, appearing on governmental review committees, and backing that up with a loud and visible activist movement. The point is that we need different organisational forms to work effectively on these different levels. Drug law reform should always be out front in user organisation media, particularly our magazines, but also radio, email lists, websites etc. Individuals who become inspired by these activities can both be channelled into the activist networks, and contribute to the work done by DUO in this area.
8. The flip side of this last point is that drug users who gain activist experience while involved in law reform networks can, and should be encouraged to apply for staff positions within DUO, and to put themselves forward for Committees of Management at AGM time. This symbiotic relationship between looser networks and established organisations will help ensure we have another generation of drug user activists, and will increase participation of drug users in DUO.
For some reason, I have found it incredibly difficult to organise my thoughts and write this article. What has become very clear to me in the process is that going forward will require the ideas and input of many more drug users than those I’ve been able to discuss this piece with so far. Hopefully, this article, (and one prepared at the same time by Rohan Wightman), will help inspire further discussion. In the end though, only through getting involved and trying out new ideas will we be able to determine the key components of the next wave of drug user activism.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win. If we don’t fight, we lose. I’m sure I speak for many of us when I say I’ve lost enough. I’ve lost a years wages up my arm. I had a lot of fun doing it, but it would undoubtedly have been more fun if it was affordable, and if I didn’t fear standover and arrest everytime I wanted to score. More importantly, I’ve lost friends. Friends to illness, friends to prison, friends to overdose, friends because they bought the bullshit that gets said about users. I’ve lost my teeth! We’ve all lost more than enough. Time to fight.
. Oh how far we have fallen ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
. Providence protect us all! 
