Government reactions to harm reduction

It pisses me off when governments just disregaurd harm reduction. In Australia the gov has just launched a new anti drug campeign focusing on xtc , it costed them 12 million bucks and basically all they rant on about is that these people selling xtc are putting all kinds of things into these pills and it is damaging ur youth and they are niave to think they are getting the "real" thing i guess there are some thruths in these campeigns e.g. depression and that e can have a bad effect on some people, but of coarse they blow the facts much bigger than they are and it comes to the line between fact and totall bullshit.

In an article in one of the Australian newspapers(cant remeber which one just recallling from memory) was alking about harm reduction and the writer interveiwed the Australian helth minister, he said that websites that condone or educate people about drug use should not be allowed to be on the internet and should not be accepted as a reliable source of info. Thanks to bluelight and pillreports e all have better chance at knowing what we are takeing and i belive that thanks to those sites even the people that are making the drugs are making a better effort not to put nasty shit in pills because they know the pill wont get very far before people start throwing them away.

The government i only tring to educate youth that havent used xtc which is fair enough but then again i ignored all the things id heard from the media and i did little bit of research (like most people do i hope) and found the effects not to be that bad as the media and government make it out to be.

They are saying that people dont know what they are getting in our pills, then what about some of that fucking 12 million bucks going to set up testing booths in clubs and possibly gov funded staff that go on educating people who are out at clubs( e.g. drinking more water or eating fruit like some of the allready set up voluntary associations like rave safe and smile police.

I would really like your support on this one all the articles in the paper latly i feel that i should write a letter the to editor. just give me your thoughts on this topic and ways the government should spend the money to educate and or keep people safe while out partying on xtc.

it makes me sick the conservative aproach that the goverment undertakes,
i will say this time and time again. MDMA is alot safer (statisticley aswell!!) then alchol ever will be, but the govement cannot TAX MDMA so there is no market for it...

it is very sad that the goverment in australia wil not embrase harm reduction, and must live in the dark ages...
what will it take for the goverment to adopt an open mind on this issue..

i would write a letter, but the media would word it in such a way that it would make me out to be some hard core drug user.. then for a whole week i will get letters flaming me from conservative old men who have nothing better to do, and fear that i will try and break into there house to feed me 'MDMA addiction' despite being in a profesional job...

British Government Risk Classification

taken from http://www.ecstasy.org/info/risk.html


Sir Kenneth Calman, Govt Chief Medical Officer, has instituted a government directive on how to explain risks to the public in a consistent way, intended for patients with a choice of treatments. They argued that statistics are confusing to normal people, and so they want to establish consistent use of terms so that the 'man in the street' can compare one type of risk with another.



From The Times, 26/9/96 on "On the State of the Public Health", HMSO 1995 Risk of dying in any one year as a result of exposure to the various dangers:


Moderate risk = less than 1:100 but greater than 1:1,000, eg Smoking 10 cigarettes a day, parachuting

Low risk = less than 1:1,000 but greater than 1:10,000, eg Influenza, road accident

Very Low risk = less than 1:10,000 but greater than 1:100,000, eg leukaemia, playing soccer, accident at work, murder

Minimal risk = less than 1:100,000 but greater than1:1,000,000, eg railway accident, horse riding, fishing

Negligible risk = less than 1:1,000,000, eg hit by lightning or radiation leak from nuclear power station



The risk of death from using Ecstasy depends on the number of users and the number of deaths per year, both figures which are disputed. At a recent meeting I attended along with a senior police officer, senior drugs educator and head of drugs agency Lifeline, all were convinced that there are well over a million regular users of Ecstasy, some thought as many as 2 million. On the other hand, the British Crime Survey 1996 reported that there are only 80,000 regular users.

The number of deaths known to be due to Ecstasy (ie, it was found in their blood and there was no other obvious cause) is about seven per year in the UK. Higher figures include 'Ecstasy-associated deaths' of people who have taken Ecstasy but whose death was not directly attributed to the drug.

If we assume a million users, this works out at 1:143,000, implying the risk is "Minimal".

If we assume 80,000 users, this works out at 1:11,430, implying the risk is "Very Low".

You are more likely to be murdered or die playing soccer than taking ecstasy.



clop

^^ I agree 100%

Users have to get organised and start up their own harm reduction groups. In the mid - late 80s, almost every state in Australia had IV drug users form organisations to lobby for access to clean injecting equipment. Most of these organisations are still around, although many have been co-opted out of their advocacy role by taking on government funding.

Enlighten is a great example of users getting organised. You don't need any government approval to print your own fliers promoting safer drug use and distributing them at parties. Pill testing is something that really does need government approval, but there are other things you can do.

Also, just to get some perspective, some of you might be shocked to know that Australia has at the centre of it's national drug policy the idea of harm minimisation. This is comprised of three main elements: supply reduction (customs, police etc) demand reduction ("Just say No" adds on TV etc) and harm reduction (pill testing, needle exchage etc).

Australia did very well on harm reduction throughout the early 1990's. This was primarily in regards to injecting drug use and reducing the spread of HIV / hep C. We have been incredibly successful in that, but it seems that harm reduction has got stuck at that point.

Howard et al have been in power since 1996 and they're the ones who've put the brakes on. Many of you would be surprised to know that the vast majority of alcohol and other drug professionals (eg counselors, social workers, educators etc) are pro-harm reduction. If anyone here subscribes to the ADCA email list (Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia) you'll see that the zero-tolerance zealots are in the minority.

Where politics is involved, we're no longer dealing in reality. Of course harm reduction makes sense. That isn't the point. The government wants to cultivate a particular image of itself to the general public. The ads on TV at the moment are not designed to stop people using drugs, nor are they designed to get parents to talk to their kids about drugs. The ads are about showing the general public that the government is "tough on drugs".

Enlighten is leading the push for pill testing in Australia, and if you can't be involved for one reason or another you should show your support by donating. We receive no official funding, and every one of our members volunteer. We don't need much money to make a difference, but it certainly does help make a bigger impact. If you haven't donated in the past I urge you to put your money where your mouth is. You want reagent testing at events, with the possibility of a scientific analysis of your pill? Support Enlighten, we are a vital part of the solution.

doesn't this remind you of Life of Brian

REG: Right. Now, uh, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Uh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire <insert anti-drug laws> within the next twelve months.
REG: Twelve months?
FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let's face it. As empires <laws> go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
COMMANDOS:
Hear! Hear!
LORETTA:
I agree. It's action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
COMMANDOS:
Hear! Hear!
REG:
You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches. It's not going to shift one Roman soldier <law> !
FRANCIS:
So, let's just stop gabbing on about it. It's completely pointless and it's getting us nowhere!
COMMANDOS:
Right!
LORETTA:
I agree. This is a complete waste of time.

agreed. that's why i don't post here. too busy doing stuff. donate, kids. as mac says it gives good karma