NEWS : 27.9.09 - Prevention, not detention, in drug fight

[kingpin007]

Prevention, not detention, in drug fight


JULIE ROBOTHAN MEDICAL EDITOR

September 27, 2009

AUSTRALIA'S emphasis on law enforcement as the principal element of its illicit drug strategy is out of kilter with community attitudes, a survey reveals.

Most people believe the biggest investment should be in education programs to prevent people beginning to use drugs, with the remainder split equally among treatment programs, harm-reduction schemes and law enforcement, according to results from a representative survey of more than 500 adults in June by the drug policy group Anex.

But according to separate analysis from the Melbourne-based Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, about 56 per cent of the money the nation spends on tackling drugs goes to police and courts. Health initiatives such as overdose prevention and needle exchanges receive only 2 per cent of total funding.

More than half think the justice system will never solve drug problems, according to the Anex survey, which comes as the the National Drug Strategy's four-year cycle is about to expire at the end of this year. One-third of people believe those who use illegal drugs should not go to jail, although 45 per cent believe they should be charged with a crime.

Just 39 per cent believe drug use would never affect their family, and three-quarters agree that drug use is connected to other problems in people's lives.

The economic crisis and its effect on personal finances put more people at risk, said John Ryan, chief executive of Anex, which is funded by federal and state governments and philanthropic grants. "People are vulnerable, and that vulnerability often leads to problematic drug use," he said.

National statistics from 2008 show more than 2 million people had used an illicit drug in the previous year, with cannabis top of the list, followed by the misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals, ecstasy and methamphetamine.

Those who used drugs had much higher levels of mental illness, with 20 per cent of those who had taken drugs in the past month reporting high levels of psychological distress, compared with 9 per cent of people who had not.

The results - to be presented this week at the Australian Drugs Conference - showed public concern about the issue was as high as ever. "It is not receding," Mr Ryan said.

About 300 people died from a drug overdose in 2007.

The director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital, Alex Wodak, said there had been a gradual shift in community attitudes to illicit drug use over the years. ''People are increasingly recognising that health and social interventions are a much more effective, less expensive approach,'' Dr Wodak said.

''Law enforcement used to be a brilliant political strategy to get people re-elected, but times are changing and the fear-based approach no longer works.''

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/prevention-not-detention-in-drug-fight-20090926-g73v.html

 

[lil angel15]

About 300 people died from a drug overdose in 2007.

We all know their target is incorrectly focussed considering 15,000 people in Australia die per annum as a result of tobacco related illness. Even comparatively speaking, it's way out!!!

 

[drug_mentor]

Good to read that so many people have that attitude, hopefully it means theres a possibility of change in the near future.

It is atrocious to read that overdose prevention and needle exchanges recieve a measly 2% of funding though!

 

[spok]

how many people die as a consequence of an unhealthy diet? what does that cost society? that figure would wipe the floor with the lot of them, so what should we do, prohibit high calorie foods and police people's diet? jail people for supplying black market burgers? of course not, that would be a stupid waste of resources. you educate people so they do it themselves, in the mean time you manage the supply. the principle is the same. when people really understand why they shouldn't do this or that, why they would make that choice in the first, and what they should do, generally speaking they'll go about it in the right way

it's all just the same rubbish.........

there's no point fizzing over the gleaming flaws in the old school mentality, it's just a matter of waiting for the cultural relics who currently have influence to F off to the retirement home

we're in a transitional stage at the moment (basically dumb animal to smart animal), and we're all witness to it. "rule by force" is fading into irrelevance with developments in communication technology allowing us to share more information and become collectively and so individually more intelligent

at one time rule by force was necessary (that's how other animals with walnut sized brains do it), because getting everyone on the same page was almost impossible, so your only choice is to say "this is how it's going to be" (i'm talking middle ages). through trial and error we eventually get it right

that day is gone, and the people who think that way need to adapt or step aside

prohibition is a bit like a bad tempered little shit jumping up and down screaming "i said no! i said no!" it's futile...........

drugs are happening and it's not going away, get people clued up and making informed choices or keep chasing your fucking tail

this all comes back to education, everything is based on what people understand of the world around them, because it hurts (literally) when things don't make sense....this is what drives people to compulsive behaviours like superstition, substance abuse or gambling etc.

we could get by in the jungle on impulse, which basically means believe what ever makes you feel good because the jungle is pretty straight forward > fight/run, eat, shit, breed. but it's just not going to cut it in the modern world, the modern world is built on logic and reality so people either have to be educated according to the real world or they're going to freak out like a dog on the freeway and become a haree krishna or whatever the fuck those folks who walk around the city chanting call themselves

and without going too far off topic "capitalism" has a role in all of this (like anything black or whit logic based it's just too simplistic). human civilization is basically built on economy, it's the glue that holds our way of life together, without an economy it's back to hunting with spears and cave paintings for the lot of us

just to clarify black or white logic, a good example is does money bring happiness. the answer isn't yes (black) or no (white) it's both. if someone isn't happy because they're too poor to afford corn flakes, money will make them fucking ecstatic. if someone is so rich they could afford to buy the corn flake brand and their whole family is killed in a freak lawn mowing accident their money won't guarantee they will ever get over it. people like to use blanket answers because it's simple, but reality isn't that simple (when somethings "complicated" just means we don't fully understand yet anyway)

back on track (if there is one), if people don't have money they're limited in what exactly they can do with their life, if they aren't happy with the way things are going and don't understand, or in reality can't do anything to change it they're going to act out

this whole economic crisis is the first sign of that and things will change because they have to. no one should have more money than they can possibly spend in a life time when the guy doing all the shit work can't afford to own his own house. it's not a matter or capitalism or communism (wait we say socialism now so as not to be associated with previous authoritarianski states) it's a matter of both, depending on which one the circumstances call for

at the moment it's guy at top gets payed 10,000,000, next guy down gets payed 3, next down 0.75.....profits should be passed right down the chain proportionally. there should still be a pecking order because that's the successful human formula, but it should be more proportional..........guy at the top gets payed 20, next guy down gets payed 15, next guy down 10 etc. if it's capacity based generally speaking everyone should be happy with what they've got

there's obviously a bit more to it than that but yeah, there's my bit. hope at least one person found some of that interesting haha

/rant off

 

[Sameria]

The painful thing is having knows all this for so long, seeing promising media articles like this, and just waiting for something to change.

It really does my brain in some times. When I'm a bit more financially well of I might have to run for parliament and change a few things

 

[hyroller]

Good to read something of substance from time to time

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

The painful thing is having knows all this for so long, seeing promising media articles like this, and just waiting for something to change.

It really does my brain in some times. When I'm a bit more financially well of I might have to run for parliament and change a few things

Amen. But I dont think its ever going to happen. I mean most of our politicians were teenagers/young adults in the 70's (when apparently there were quite a few drugs around) and many admit to the odd bit of substance abuse (though usually only weed) when they were young. When exactly is this 'enlightened generation' going to arrive? People who were young adults in the 80's? the 90's. Its so goddam frustrating...

 

[spok]

have to disagree with you there mate, there were a lot of drugs around in that time yes, but it was just the beginning. and as usual when ignorant people are confronted with something that scares them they respond defensively - prohibition. but in reality that was the sensible thing for them to do, if they honestly knew any better they would have acted accordingly. for all they knew dregs were that scourge on society that would end the capitalist way of life and let to commies mop up

the learning process is just very slow, especially when it isn't time critical (as in it doesn't matter one way or the other to most) because it's the majority who make the decisions...the politicians are just a figure head

 

[Sameria]

have to disagree with you there mate, there were a lot of drugs around in that time yes, but it was just the beginning. and as usual when ignorant people are confronted with something that scares them they respond defensively - prohibition. but in reality that was the sensible thing for them to do, if they honestly knew any better they would have acted accordingly. for all they knew dregs were that scourge on society that would end the capitalist way of life and let to commies mop up

the learning process is just very slow, especially when it isn't time critical (as in it doesn't matter one way or the other to most) because it's the majority who make the decisions...the politicians are just a figure head

I think it goes a little deeper than that.

There is a huge range of factors that contributed to the prohibition of drugs, but the counter culture movement of the 60's and 70's was one of the larger factors. Think about, a totally new generation that questioned their elders decisions and way of life as a whole.

The highers ups of 30-40 years ago were frightened by the hippie culture and did all within their power to stunt its growth. Don't forget there is also a lot of religious and racial influences that greatly effected the prohibition movement.