NEWS: Howard defends 'tough on drugs' policy (SMH 4/5/06)

[Jimity]

Howard defends 'tough on drugs' policy

May 4, 2006

Prime Minister John Howard has defended governments' rights to curtail individual freedom, citing his Tough on Drugs strategy as an example.

Mr Howard has used a speech to the Centre for Independent Studies to highlight his government's social reforms, saying he has tried to balance order and liberty.

He said there was always a danger of governments thinking they had a better idea of someone's interests than the person involved.

But he said the Tough on Drugs strategy's unambiguous message had saved lives.

"Since 1999, the number of heroin deaths in Australia has fallen by more than two-thirds," Mr Howard told the centre's 30th anniversary celebrations in Sydney.

"The number of Australians who report that they have used illicit drugs has dropped from 22 per cent to 15 per cent since 1998.

"And we have seen a fall of 180,000 in the number who regularly use marijuana, which is welcome given evidence of links to some forms of mental illness.

"Clearly, no government should take lightly the restriction of individual freedom, but true freedom is bound up with self-government, properly understood."

Mr Howard said history had shown all too often the danger when government schemes to improve society wound up making things worse.

"But equally there are times when governments need to look seriously at policies which might appear paternalistic in the libertarian lecture hall, but which help to reinforce social norms and values that are under assault in various ways," he said.

"Government activism should always be cautious, but governments do have a responsibility to articulate a clear cultural message, especially in confronting social pathologies such as crime, domestic violence and drug addiction."

Mr Howard also addressed the centre's 20th anniversary dinner shortly after taking office in 1996.

Link

 

[mepat1111]

I still fail to see how ecstacy or pot is worse than tobacco or alcohol.

 

[tribesman]

Its just typical government selectively using statistics to back up failed policies. The decline in heroin use has almost definately had something to do with the explosion in methamphetamine use, which while it may not cause as many deaths certainly causes many more problems with violence, mental disorders etc.

Not to mention the whole 'cycle of drugs' thing, I saw statistics recently (I'm sorry I don't have them on me I know its poor form) that youth are getting more 'conservative' in general, with voting patterns (voting for liberals over labour and greens for example) etc. This also would have alot to do with the amount of people using drugs on the whole.

 

[hoptis]

Interesting if only to highlight the foundations for the Prime Minister's own beliefs on drugs, which he rarely talks at much length about. I agree with the comment about selective use of statistics too. Like most old conservatives, he'll go to his grave believing what he does simply because he blindly swallows all the "facts" provided by his justice and health ministers.

 

[phase_dancer]

The number of Australians who report that they have used illicit drugs has dropped from 22 per cent to 15 per cent since 1998

At a grass roots level, I suspect reluctance to admit drug use is playing an ever larger part in undermining the accuracy of these figures. I know people who, today, won't admit to using to anyone they don't know well, and certainly wouldn't partake in any survey. Many were just the opposite back in 1998 when the perceived threat from admitting use was far less.

 

[ilikeacid]

This is so typical of the Howard Goverment. Touting selective facts to obscure the real picture that the level of drug use amongst the population has probably remained the same for the past decade. When the use of one drug goes down, another will go up accordingly, this is proved by increases in ecstasy and meth use (sorry for no figures). When will an Australian government actually start constructively dealing with drug issues?! I'm sick of living in a country where from a legal point of view I am a criminal for living the way I want! I don't harm anyone, and my drug behaviour is much safer than when you compare it to that of an angry drunk! Society is so fucked sometimes!

 

[Aware]

" but governments do have a responsibility to articulate a clear cultural message,"

WTF? Since when?

 

[beamers]

" but governments do have a responsibility to articulate a clear cultural message,"

yes a culture of corruption and lying (AWB, Iraq & children overboard). How does alexander sleep at night.

 

[dtasrt_lk]

phase dancers got a good point admitting to it (or even doing a survey) does play a big part. Statistics is so full of shit due to so many contributing factors. Its the least accurate form of maths and I hate hearing people on tv bitching on and on about statistics and then end up making wrong decisions because of false information.

Im sick of the howard government


Society is not fucked up sometimes. Its fucked up all the time

 

[static_mind]

Doesn't Australia have the highest xtc abuse rate per capitor in teh world? Why didn't he mention that.

 

[Preme213]

" but governments do have a responsibility to articulate a clear cultural message,"

WTF? Since when?

hey, they don't call it eurocentrism for nothing.

 

[emjay1977]

Statistics? Did you know 90% of crimes in Australia are committed within 24 hours of the pepetrator having EATEN BREAD. Makes you think.

 

[Chronik Fatigue]

^^ lmao!

 

[ayjay]

I read that article on the weekend and wanted to vomit. Howard's argument is so off beam it's hard to know where to start. Here's some things:

"Tough on Drugs" refers to overall drug policy. This includes an increased amount of funding towards needle syringe programs. The Howard government rhetoric is very prohibitionist, but this is not totally reflected in funding. There has been a shift in policy documents away from using the phrase "harm reduction" - it is not totally clear how this will impact on service provision; can we just change our language to meet funding criteria and keep doing what we are doing? Check out Tough on drugs, soft on evidence? A commentary on the implications for research and service delivery of the Australian federal government approach to drug policy (Treloar, Loveday, Booker) - you can download this from http://theconsortium.nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/Clearinghouse/search.htm

Also worth checking out is the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. As Howard points out, reported illicit drug use has gone down overall. But this can be almost entirely explained by the reduction in cannabis use. As other posters have pointed out, use of methamphetamine and MDMA has increased significantly over the last few years.

The reduction in reported cannabis use is probably to do with a cultural shift - it's just not as socially acceptable these days. This would also increase the number of cannabis smokers choosing not to disclose their use in this survey. It's possible that "Tough on drugs" advertising contributed to this shift - but then why did it fail to change attitudes to other drugs? Let's face it; taking drugs that slow you down is so fucking 20th century, man

All in all - a load of bollocks presented as ambrosia.

 

[drancer]

I think what the government is saying is just that.. a bunch of words with hardly any action to back up its proposterous ambitious claims. I for one am not scared.

 

[phase_dancer]

I think what the government is saying is just that.. a bunch of words with hardly any action to back up its proposterous ambitious claims. I for one am not scared.

Well you should be. Read the Submissions to the AOSD and then decide whether or not the government is intent on implimenting rules at the cost of personal liberty. Many of the newly introduced laws work on presumption of guilt. For example, no drugs need to be present for a person to be convicted of making drugs. This legislation is very close to what was initially introduced in the US as part of the original 'Analogues Bill'. However, due to the US constitution, these laws were challanged fairly quickly after being introduced, with the result being something far more watered down than the recently implimented changes to Australian law.

Speaking of which, can some law person explain what "Coercive Powers" are?

Further strategies which have been engaged in by the ACC to optimise the impact of its activities against AOSD include:

• strategic use of the coercive powers and other specialist intelligence collecting.....

From page 5 of submission no: 18 (above link)

 

[Anton_Fairfax]

Why can't anyone ever be pro-government AND use drugs?? All this howard bashing...

The best thing the FBI did for the mafia was declare in the 1930's that it didn't exsist! It allowed it to conduct itself under less public scrutiny.
Same goes here...
I would think that when the govt shrouds its inactivity on drugs with misleading statistics in order to make the general public think things are better, it's a good thing for users and dealers, cause if people think there's no problem, it creates less bother for us users (and dealers).

I find it hypocritical that when the govt takes action to stop drug use or dealing, everyone here whinges, yet when the govt does NOTHING to stop drug use or dealing, they STILL whinge. people bitch about "tough on drugs" policy then bitch when "tough on drugs" doesn't curb the drug problem. Do people here WANT howard to stamp out the manufacture n supply of narcotics in australia????

And if the real issue is just the fact that howard is twisting figures to suit his political ambitions, well WELCOME to politics! i wont get into a political debate but there are plenty of far worse statistical distortions from the other side of parliament... but lets not go there

 

[Prince Planet]

If I remember correctly the questions, or the wording of the questions that are asked of Australians with regards to drug use have changed since 1998. Hence, it's quite easy to point to a reduction in drug use if you ask the right question.

 

[hoptis]

Speaking of which, can some law person explain what "Coercive Powers" are?

I'm not a law person but I think coercive powers refers to particular powers that the ACC and other bodies (i.e. organised crime investigators in Victoria) have to question organised crime suspects/witnesses and demand answers from them under threat of imprisonment.

Typically, before an inquiry, people have the right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds of self-incrimination. Coercive powers used by special investigators don't take this into regard and you must answer their questions even if it incriminates you in a crime.

 

[phase_dancer]

Thanks for that hoptis. I thought it was probably something along those lines.