Discrimination Against Drug Users

[RaveSafeVIC]

The Howard Government is proposing amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) to permit discrimination against illicit drug users in all areas of life covered by the Act, including employment, education, accommodation and acess to goods and services. The Amendment has been referred to a Senate Inquiry.

VIVAIDS (the Victorian Drug User Organisation) in conjunction with the Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) and the Disability Discrimination Legal Service (DDLS) will be hosting a forum to discuss the issue. The forum is open to all including drug users, community legal, health and welfare services (including those in the AOD sector), researchers, allied health professionals, politicians and bureaucrats.

Attendance at the Forum will equip organisations and individuals to make formal submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the proposed Amendment (closing date 9 February 2004). Forum speakers will include: . Senator Lyn Allison, Acting Leader, Australian Democracts - responding to the Bill . Phil Lynch, PILCH - legal and human rights implications . Tamara Speed, Senior Policy Analyst, VIVAIDS - impacts from the user perspective . Dr Alex Wodak, St Vincents Hospital Sydney - impacts and effects from a drug treatment service perspective . Stan Winford, Drug Outreach Lawyer, Fitzroy Legal Service . Annie Madden, AIVL - a national perspective

An interactive panel discussion will follow formal presentations.

Time 12.30-3pm
Date Thursday 22 January 2004
Venue Arnold Bloch Leibler, Level 21, 333 Collins Street, Melbourne

Free lunch will be provided

RSVPs are necessary to Phil Lynch at [email protected] or (03) 9225 6684 by Monday 19 January 2004. There is limited seating, so RSVP ASAP because the seats are filling up quickly.

 

[phase_dancer]

The implications of this legislation getting through are too dire to completely picture. Anarchy as has never been seen before? Possibly. But the real social impact will be segregating on a level never seen before. How much extra respect for the law will drug users have if they can't survive? 8)

Ludicrous idea; are the proponents of this laughable absurdity receiving counseling themselves?

One thing is for sure, ol' Johnny is setting himself up for the big slide in popularity we've all been waiting for. I think he's just sooooooo out of touch with the "common man" that even if such a policy was approved in the senate (and I doubt it very much) it would surely have to be reversed by any new incoming government.

Is this the response to United Nations claims regarding Australia's BAD drug problem? I noticed MIXMAG has also quoted these stats; that Aus has the LARGEST E use in the world, and is second only to Thailand in it's meth use. While some may feel this is an accurate statement, the methods of estimation used to arrive at these figures is dubious to say the least. Perhaps it's the UN itself which need to placed under tighter scrutiny?


Thanks so much for bringing this to attention RaveSafe Vic. If it were possible I'd be there for the meeting. I've got a lot of time for Dr Alex Wodak, a true visionary and hero of our time IMHO.

 

[quiet roar]

Maybe I'm more cynical than you PD but I think the "common man" would applaud this kind of legislation. And I also couldn't see any future government reversing it - well not in my lifetime anyway.

Fuck I hope I'm wrong!

 

[phase_dancer]

So...you have a good job, work hard and take an E every month as your sole means of social lubricant.

But I want your job and I can take it by notifying the right person in power that you are a drug user.

See ya....how's your reference?

The concept of the "common man' in this in this respect spreads to cover a wide area .

 

[quiet roar]

I know what you mean, but I still believe most of the people (including some users) will think it's a good idea.

 

[phase_dancer]

Hypothetical II

Your boss is a cool dude, has a good successful staff. So a rival looks at what he can do to force you out. He contacts the media who rush to sensationalize on what amounts to independent assessment. Suddenly implications come from everywhere and the safety of association is in jeopardy.


Or the trusty insurance company gleefully rubbing it's hands together at the increased power factor, states unequivocally, that failure to comply will result in an across the board black listing.

This is another step towards forced compliance, nothing more. It will infiltrate more departments, social policies and freedom of choice than most seem to realise. It would also be a resounding win for pharmaceutical giants, but that's another issue altogether.

 

[quiet roar]

^^^ Correct.

And you can bet testing at the workplace will become mandatory to obtain workcover or PI insurance.

 

[Airwalk]

Well I think it may be an idea for people who by day look just like little johnnies idea of the perfect citezen to attend and contibute.

Many people only see your average drug user as some scummy little rodent who theives. Those who do partake are obviously more aware of the true situation and the only way to be seen is to 'be seen'.

 

[syntech]

oh
my
god

if this somehow eventuates i'll seriously reconsider my views on australia being the best place to live.

such bullshit i have never heard in my life

 

[jewbob]

what syntech said :D

 

[phase_dancer]

oh
my
god

if this somehow eventuates i'll seriously reconsider my views on australia being the best place to live.

such bullshit i have never heard in my life

I hear Niue is going cheap

 

[smileyfish]

*shakes head in disbelief*

I certainly hope this doesn't get through, although I have my doubts

If passed, this bill would, I belive, eventually lead to mandatory workplace testing - something we'd all suffer from. It's our business, as responsible users, to educate the "common man" that your average drug user is not as portrayed in the media. The better, more informed image we project, the less support there will be for policies like this.

Smiley

 

[apollo]

This is... This is not good

But no suprise coming from Howard.

 

[phase_dancer]

OK, let hypothesize a little further and bring a spark of hope back into things.

If such a move was put in place, how long do you think it would take to affect the GDP? Not long IMO, and as there would be no room for special circumstances (yeah right 8)) those who did not comply would be out.


I don't know who's wearing the blinkers, but if it can't be seen that such a move would shake society like nothing ever has, then maybe it's time to make things perfectly clear as to what the "average user" situation is.

It has been discussed here before; when the time comes as was forseen, who be a closet drug user, and who will step forward?

Most waved off the topic as being unnecessary worry, as it would never come to that being required. Those people may wish to think again.

This is like a domestic version of the recent war. Only any such mass demonstration so quickly after the last, would definitely remove all blinkers IMO. The problem is with the slimy policy makers of present, is that media suppression of limited media release could see this sneak in under our once powdered noses.

But in ending on a positive note; it is unlikely that senselessness will overrule in the senate. The immediate social consequences would be seen as incomparable.

So write to your local representative. Or sit back and be prepared to receive the mark of a bygone area.

 

[MezZedUp]

Just found this thought you should all have a read of it. While I'm still horrified by the fact that this bill has been suggested, it is not as extremely reactive as I was fearing.

This is the actual bill for those interested: amendment thing

There is a Democrat response (Senator Greig's response, just above halfway down the page) here

There are a few articles in The Age if anyone can bear to read them too. I won't post the links here, I just felt like this thread could bear some more info to complement the excellent hypothesising here

 

[phase_dancer]

Thanks so much for those links MezZedUp.

I haven't read the others yet, but Senator Greig's response was a very good read, even if it is disturbingly real. It does tend to confirm the worst fears; that legislation will affect many, and that motivation is driven by an obvious underlying directive/objective.

I have to quote this last piece, although the whole thing more than deserves reading.

...Quite simply, there is no justification for this change, the move is another ideologically driven plank in the Government's tough on drugs strategy.

Clearly employer groups are concerned about the implications of a newly articulated requirement and other community members may join them. However, a civilised and compassionate community will not shun that requirement, but seek to be educated about it.

People with addictions often become so as a consequence of social isolation and exclusion. Further and deliberate exclusion will only worsen their circumstances and those of the entire community.

For these reasons the Australian Democrats strongly support the referral of this Bill to a committee inquiry to ensure full community debate about the important issues it raises.

 

[twominds]

Ludicrous idea; are the proponents of this laughable absurdity receiving counseling themselves?

QUOTE] LOL! Great question.

 

[Psychadelic_Paisly]

Could this be another behind the doors deal to get a little lovin' from George Dubya?
I know that in the states it's compolsory...so maybe....

Heaven forbid this gets through....when is it to be voted on?

 

[Jimity]

Voted on? HA! This was almost a certinty the moment GW told Johnny to do it.

 

[smileyfish]

Thanks a lot Mezzed - good work!

For once, the Democrat's reply has addressed almost all of my concerns in regard to this proposed amendment (bar the insurnce question). A worthwhile read IMHO, as is the first link, the actual bill propostitions.

Senator Grieg is right - there are all ready provisions for lawful dismissal of intoxicated employees - the rest is not necessary and is discriminatory, especially as "addiction" remains undefined within the Bill.

Write to your local members or to newspapers etc, expressing support for the Democrat's stance. You don't have to flag your own recreational pursuits, just take a stand on "compassionate grounds". The more people informed about these propsed changes, the better!

Smiley