THE SA DRUG SUMMIT 2002Drug Summit 2002 Debrief - The View From Here Index to Excerpts of Hansard Transcripts
FOR THE COMPLETE 394 page HANSARD TRANSCRIPT (AVAILABLE IN PDF FORMAT) GOTO http://www.drugsummit2002.sa.gov.au/public/agenda/agenda.html TheSummit site itself is at http://www.drugsummit2002.sa.gov.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug Summit 2002 Debrief - The View From Here The long awaited SA Drug Summit 2002 has come and gone and we are now left to try & figure out exactly where we stand in relation to drugs in SA. There were some very positive outcomes (and a couple of very negative outcomes also) achieved, although the whole process stands in question following the pre-emptive manouvres of Premier Mike Rann in announcing a ‘crackdown’ on ‘hydroponics’. (indoor growing). The Summit was held over five days at the Entertainment Centre and was the culmination of a period of ‘community consultation’ which saw alternative and reformist view points discouraged, marginalised and filtered from the mainstream discussion. HEMP members that attended some of these meetings reported that in some there was an overwhelming police presence - up to 14 officers at some of the meetings which were chaired, facilitated and minuted by police. Others reported a systematic process of simply ignoring calls for decriminalisation, legalisaion or other reforms. Public submissions were also requested and 58 were received. Unfortunately many Cannabis users were simply unaware of this and others felt unable to publicly contribute to the debate. Youth and alternative media did not receive adequate publicity of the event and were not able to get the message out to their audience. Despite this, summaries of the discussion did mention drug law reform as a significant concern and indicated a widespread level of support throughout the community. This material was available to Summit delegates, but only at the last minute. The Summit was held as part of the new ‘social Inclusion’ initiative, but as such failed the test. Only four delegates were attended on behalf of user representative groups (HEMP, SAVIVE, the Users Association, Ravesafe) as well as a few people from the dance music scene. There was minimal participation by the Union movement with only one delegate and the left of politics in general with no Greens, or other activists. Ethnic communities were also under-represented, as were young people in general and Cannabis users in particular. Police were over-represented at all levels, from Community consultation facilitators and witnesses (participants?) to their roles at the summit in facilitating working groups and as delegates (14 or 15 delegates as well as a keynote speech from the Commissioner Mal Hyde). They clearly had a significant input into shaping the agenda with a ‘Law Enforcement’ working group, but this was not balanced with a ‘Harm Reduction’ working group. It was the Law Enforcement working group that presented the only really contentious recommendation of the summit that included as one of its five major clauses that hydroponic (indoor) cultivation be made a criminal offence and removed from the CEN legislation. This part of their recommendation regarding the exclusion of hydroponics was not mentioned in the plenary sessions until the final day when it was presented as a fait accompli without the opportunity to provide any feedback or criticism. HEMP would have appreciated a chance to address this group from our perspective but this did not occur. HEMP tried to have this clause of their recommendations dealt with separately, but failed narrowly to get majority support for this idea. Inste4ad we urged all delegates to protest by downgrading the level of support they gave the recommendation as a whole. Prior to the vote HEMP addressed the summit and made the point that indoor growing was the method of choice for personal users as well as commercial cultivators. Any recriminalisation of indoor growing would simply make criminals out of perhaps 90% of the people that now grow Cannabis - in direct opposition to the spirit of the CEN legislation which sought to remove personal use and cultivation as a criminal offence. As an alternative HEMP suggested that personal use be defined not by the number of plants grown, or growing methods, but by wattage if grown indoors. We suggested 600W be considered the boundary at and below which cultivation would be deemed to be for personal use. (A 600W lamp could reasonably expect to yield about of 10oz (dry weight) of buds a maximum of 4 times per year . Most growers would grow 3 times a year which would equal less than 2lbs /yr or around 2.5 oz/per month - enough for most personal users) In contrast to the overwhelming ‘strong support’ shown to practically all other recommendations, the proposal to ‘ban hydroponics’ was only ‘strongly supported’ by around 25 of the 170 delegates. The first vote was so even that a recount had to be taken! The recount showed that 26 gave it 'strong support ', 23 'some support', 38 'little support' and 9 did not support it! In total 49 delegates gave it ‘strong’ or ‘some’ support and 47 gave it ‘little’ or ‘no’ support. Too close to call that way, but the trend was obvious: About 3/4 of those who voted gave only ‘some support’, ‘little support’ or ‘no support’ to the proposal! Around 50 delegates abstained or did not vote. At the same time that the Summit effectively dismissed this recommendation the Premier Mike Rann was issuing a media release announcing a ‘crackdown’ on ‘hydroponics’. When challenged by delegates as to the legitimacy of the move he responded angrily telling the Summit we were not there to make decisions, just recommendations, and that we ‘were not the Parliament’! The day finished badly for the Premier with the Summit strongly endorsing a controlled heroin trial despite attempts to keep such a move off the agenda. There were other positive outcomes: The Breaking the Drugs & Crime Link working group made some very positive recommendations that were strongly supported by the majority of the Summit. These included some fantastic recommendations for law reform that included: 1) abolition of criminal penalties & criminal records for personal possession offences for any drug; 2) Review of the CEN legislation with regard to: a) the number of plants that could be grown b) the option of receiving educational material and/or treatment if required as an alternative to paying the fine c) abolishing the offence of possession of implements as a crime (effectively making bongs and pipes legal as a harm reduction measure) d) allowing for the expungement of old criminal records for personal possession and minor cultivation offences e) adequately publicising the laws to users and the community; 3)medical & therapeutic uses of Cannabis 4) pill testing The concept of treating drug use as a health issue not a criminal problem was also endorsed by this group and strongly supported again by the vast majority of Summit delegates. Below are selected highlights from the Drug Summit that are of particular interest to Cannabis law reformers. They consist of either statements related to Cannabis or statements/questions from User Representatives. It is notable that out of nearly 400 pages of transcript there are only around 20 pages from a users perspective. The entire transcripts are well worth reading, but if you haven’t the time, this is the best & the worst of what the Summit had to offer for Cannabis users.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDEX TO EXCERPTS FROM THE HANSARD TRANSCRIPTS SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 1 MONDAY 24 JUNE SETTING THE SCENE–NATURE, EXTENT AND FACTS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM Statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition THE HON. DEAN BROWN: pp9-10 Plenary Session 1. HEMP SA P.47
DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS Questions: HEMP SA pp87-88. SAVIVE (DAMON BROGAN) pp96-97 MS LYN BREUER (ALP Member for Giles) p128 Keynote Speakers A Users Perspective (‘JACKIE‘) p130 Another Look at Rehabilitation HON. A.L. EVANS: (Family First MLC) pp136-137
DAY 3 WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS (CONT) Question: HEMP SA p185 Keynote Speaker Drugs: A Law and Order Issue or a Health and Social Issue? HON. M.J. ELLIOTT (Australian Democrats) pp186-189
DAY 4 THURSDAY 27 JUNE DRUGS AND COMMUNITIES: STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES AND BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS RAVESAFE (MIRANDA GRAMP) pp286-287 FESTIVAL OF LIGHT (ROSLYN PHILLIPS) pp287-288 SAVIVE (DAMON BROGAN) pp289
DAY 5 FRIDAY 28TH JUNE RECOMMENDATIONS: SAVIVE (DAMON BROGAN) p323
Group
2Breaking the Nexus Between Drugs and Crime Recommendation
4 [On Law Reform] pp 355-362 MR OıCONNELL: RHYS HENNING (Moore Street Clinic) HON. A.J. REDFORD:MLC Legislative Review Committee FESTIVAL OF LIGHT (ROSLYN PHILLIPS) MR OıCONNELL HON. M.J. ELLIOTT HON. M.D. RANN
Group
7Law Enforcement Intervention in the Illicit Drug Market Recommendation
2 MR TRUMAN HON. M.J. ELLIOTT MR MICHAEL MRS PHILLIPS MS STOPPEL : MS OıREILLEY MS HOLLY MR GIBSON
Rapporteurs
Recommendations PP387-388 ASST COMR WHITE: HON. M.J. ELLIOTT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY 1 MONDAY 24 JUNE SETTING THE SCENE–NATURE, EXTENT AND FACTS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM
NB : THE FOLOWING EXCERPTS HAVE BEEN EDITED ...: [snip]... pp9-10 Statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition THE HON. DEAN BROWN: [snip]... The Drugs Summit is an excellent opportunity to review existing drug prevention strategies and also recent initiatives such as the drug courts, drug diversion strategies, naltrexone treatment, expanded education programs, expanded enforcement through the police, and new laws for marijuana. Having chaired the most recent meeting of the Ministerial Council on Drugs of Australian governments, and also having been involved as a minister with many recent drug initiatives, there are some key issues I wish to submit for consideration by this summit. The first is the need for a very balanced approach to attack the use of marijuana, heroin and amphetamines, recognising that marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug within our community; that heroin has, by far, the most severe personal consequences; and that amphetamine type drugs are experiencing the fastest increase in use. In fact, amphetamines now are the second most commonly used illicit drugs within the community. We cannot afford to let the use of marijuana fall off the agenda. South Australia has the cheapest marijuana within the nation. We have the highest rate of cannabis use among 15 and 19 year olds within the nation. The Australian Institute of Criminology classifies Adelaide as the city where cannabis is, to use their words, easily available. We have more hydroponic stores per capita than any other city in the nation, and 70 per cent of the customers of those stores are suspected to be using it for the growing of marijuana. Just one hydroponically grown plant can yield up to 500 grams of product; a crop of 10 plants therefore equates to 2 500 money-bag deals at $25 a deal... [snip]... A major education program highlighting the adverse health effects of all drugs, but particularly of marijuana use, should also be undertaken. A draft booklet already prepared should be printed and widely distributed. The health program should be run with the same thrust and commitment as I think we have seen, certainly here in South Australia and throughout the rest of Australia, in terms of the use of tobacco within the community. There needs to be a greater public awareness recognising that the adverse effects of marijuana, for instance, on a personal basis may be even greater than that of tobacco. More research needs to be undertaken on the link, and the very clear link now, between use of marijuana on a constant basis and the onset of schizophrenia. [snip]...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 1 MONDAY 24 JUNE SETTING THE SCENE–NATURE, EXTENT AND FACTS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM Plenary Session 1. Page 47: THE HON. CAROLYN PICKLES: Thank you. I now call on Jamnes Danenberg representing HEMP SA.
MR DANENBERG: Hello everyone. I would like to thank the organisers for giving me the opportunity to speak as well. I represent HEMP SA (Help End Marijuana Prohibition) and, as well as that, some of the estimated 476 000 South Australians who at some time during their life have tried cannabis. That is about half the population of the City of Adelaide. I would like to share some observations I have culled from the statistical overview book that we received yesterday. I do not know how many of you have had a chance to look at it yet, but in there it says that 77 768 CENs were issued between 1994 and 1998. That is around 15 553 per year, of which slightly more than half were not expiated but went on and gave the recipients criminal convictions, which are permanent and non-expungeable. If we want to look at social inclusion and reintegrating people, we might like to think about expunction provisions for drug convictions after a certain period of time.
In 1998, just to take one year, there were 21 917 hospitalisations due to drug-related issues. Of that, 96 per cent were related to alcohol and tobacco, which we are not talking about here. I will go on to talk about the 21 hospitalisations that were due to cannabis, that is 0.09 per cent, or about one and three quarter people per month requiring medical treatment that was severe enough to require hospitalisation. No-one wants to trivialise the importance or significance of that for those people or their families or anything like that, but we want to make the point that cannabis, for most people, does not have serious consequences. The most significant consequence the majority of cannabis users will face is the consequence of a criminal conviction that they will carry with them for the rest of their life, as well as the involvement in a black market. They have no alternative to that because there is no regulated legal supply of cannabis as there is with alcohol.
The other thing I would like to say is that the regulations currently discriminate in favour of indoor growing. If you can grow one plant indoors four times a year, or one plant outdoors once a year, it is inevitable that people are shifting indoors, and that is an outcome that the previous government did not intend. We might like to look at perhaps reversing those current provisions. The other thing is with respect to the laws on paraphernalia. Currently there are very good public health reasons why syringes are legal but cannabis pipes are not. We must stop that discrimination. Also, the zero tolerance fact sheet is available at our display, so please help yourself and take a look at it. Thank you very much. THE HON. CAROLYN PICKLES: Thank you, Jamnes... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS pp87-88. MR DANENBERG: I represent Hemp SA. I have a general question. Are the overheads that Tim and Geoff produced available to be tabled so that we can access them and look at them in detail?
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: The answer is yes.
MR DANENBERG: The question is to the panel as a whole, but specifically to Tim and Geoff. I heard a study released on ABC Radio last week that talked about abstinence programs in relation to sexual conduct. It showed that the abstinence program had a 50 per cent higher pregnancy and STD rate. I wonder whether similar research has been done in relation to drug education programs that preach only abstinence as opposed to more broad-based harm reduction programs, which might include abstinence as a component but are more focused on a wider range of approaches.
THE HON. JENNIFER CASHMORE: We have the drugs and sex; we’re just waiting for the rock and roll now.
MR MUNRO: I will point out that we have developed historically the harm minimisation approach to drug education because in the past the abstinence program or programs have not worked. I think we have adopted for a long time the American model. The Americans still, I think, are teaching abstinence in their drug education programs, and I can give an example of how absurd it is.
In many of those programs, American teenagers are taught that they should not take any drugs including alcohol and tobacco. Typically, they will measure the students’ drug use before the program and at some time later. Of course, they find the students’ alcohol use at least has gone up. Drug education then receives a black eye because it has not prevented that drug use from taking place. But, in fact, what might be happening in American homes is that parents are giving their children alcohol.
It seems absurd that, very often, drug experts will say it may be quite appropriate for parents to introduce their children to alcohol in the home because that can demonstrate harm minimisation; it can teach children how to use it appropriately. But, according to abstinence drug education, that means that drug education has failed. It does seem absurd. There is some evidence to say that harm minimisation programs are, in fact, more effective at reducing overall harm than the abstinence programs. I think you are on the right track there.
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: The last question (before we have caffeine) will come from our far left. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS pp96-97
Plenary Discussion MR BROGAN: I thought this was going to happen this afternoon, but as an elector in the electorate of Fisher perhaps I’ll get an extra minute! A lot of speakers have talked about the importance of addressing alcohol and tobacco as well as the illicit drugs, and that’s really encouraging. While they’re talking about addressing that, I just want you to remember that you can go out and buy yourself 20 doses of alcohol, take it home, do whatever you do and you will incur no penalty. You can go out and buy two-fifths of a tablespoon of white powder drugs and be locked up for five to eight years of hard labour. So, while we’re addressing the problem, from a drug user’s point of view we are not addressing it in an equitable manner.
What I want to talk about is the fact that we have got away from the alcohol and other drugs perspective that we used to have, into this ‘tough on illicit drugs’ approach, and that has separated drugs from something that each member of the whole community can take some responsibility for and be engaged with, into something that is to do with ‘the other’, to do with that minority, to do with those horrible people over there who cause us problems.
That is very bad, and it is bad for three reasons. Focusing on illicits rather than all drugs, the first is a problem of scale. What is killing your children, or likely to kill your children, is alcohol, vehicles–motor vehicle accidents, and suicide; drugs come a long way behind. In terms of the whole community, of the 22 700 deaths in 1998 relating to drugs, 18 000 involved tobacco; 3 700 were alcohol related; and 800 covered all the illicit drugs. So, in terms of scale, we need to address these things as well as the illicits. Credibility is another issue. Kids are not going to listen to you telling them about the harms of smoking marijuana while you have a glass of scotch in one hand and a cigarette in the other. But while we promote the wine industry and depend upon tax revenue, that is exactly what we are doing as a society. Ethics is another–it’s not ethically sustainable to use the blunt instrument of criminal sanctions against one source of drugs and not the other. I would like you all to think about that this afternoon. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS p128
MS BREUER: I am the member for Giles. This is a question for either of the professors. There has not been much discussion on marijuana in the past two days. I have a lot of people who have serious drug problems in my electorate, and there is a very high proportion of young people, probably in their 20s, who are long-term users of marijuana. They are not addicted to it as in addiction terms, but they are certainly dependent on it. I am interested to know whether there are any resources available to help them; whether you believe they need any help; and whether this is will harm them in the long term. They do not necessarily try anything else, they just depend on their smoke every night, or three or four times a day. I am interested in whether much research has been undertaken and whether we should be worrying about that situation.
PROF. MATTICK: The answer is that marijuana does cause some harm. The harm has probably been overstated in the demonisation of the drug, but it does cause some harm. It can cause dependence in some individuals and it can cause some minor cognitive dysfunction. We do not know whether that is permanent. In terms of treatments, treatments are available. Cannabis is a little like amphetamines in that good treatments haven’t been developed yet. Our centre is doing a bit of work with others nationally. Resources are available. There are self-help pamphlets and triggering interventions are available, but again to intervene with this group you would have to attract them into treatment–that’s Jason’s point–and you’d have to have a treatment that you can resource. There certainly are quite sensible and quite reasonable ways of dealing with dependence which are well documented. The research literature is not huge, but it is accepted internationally. There are no tricks to it: it is basically getting people to overcome their use, to reduce it, to stop and then to put forward alternatives and to provide them with essentially cognitive behaviour interventions, which is what Jason was referring to yesterday. There are interventions which are quite effective: your problem is resourcing it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS p130 JACKIE: Hello. As a drug user for over 10 years I would like to talk about discrimination that drug users face daily. Users are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandfathers and grandmothers. We hold down jobs, we look after children, we are trainees and we are professionals. We are active participants in society. We are not all dependent on drugs and we are not all addicts. We are not all drop kicks who lie and are thieves. Some of us do have problems with drugs and issues that surround drug use, but a lot of us don’t.
People take drugs for a variety of reasons. One is because we choose to do so, because they are fun and they are enjoyable, much the same way as people like to drink alcohol. So why does society call all drug users addicts, but not all people who drink are alcoholics? It is these stereotypes that fuel the fire of discrimination and stigma around drugs and the people who use them. Many of you here today drink alcohol, but do all of you go out and drink drive? It is the same thing when you label all drug users as addicts, thieves or people who have no control over their lives at all.
So many programs and schemes have been set up for drug users with little consultation with users. Government and police would have us all thinking that these schemes are good for drug users because they are meant to keep users out of the prison system. What they don’t say is lots of things in the world are trade-offs. Users are forced to make a choice between their rights and going to gaol. For example, having to plead guilty to access the drug courts. What sort of choice is this? Certainly not one that many others in society would have to be forced to make. Is rehab really that different from prison? Removal of civil liberties is a common feature in many treatment programs. Some treatment programs to a user are just a way of saying, ‘Now I’m a government registered user.’ I know that many other people would like to have come to the Drugs Summit and would have liked their voice heard today, but unfortunately many current users were not even invited. With the fear of persecution–personally, professionally and socially–it would be a hard stand or a hard decision for most people to come out and make. I hope that one day this will change so that users can live their lives and be treated fairly, free from stigma and discrimination. Thank you.
THE HON. JENNIFER CASHMORE: Thank you ‘Jackie’ very much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 2 TUESDAY 25 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS pp136-137 Another Look at Rehabilitation THE HON. A.L. EVANS (Family First): I agree with Nick. We need to look outside the square and find some solutions. I care deeply about drug addiction, to the extent that my wife and I are respite foster carers for three little kids whose mother is a drug addict, and every fortnight we take those kids into our home and look after them. But it’s interesting to note that there is some good news in this scene and that on a national level there is a decline in the use of illicit drugs. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2001 Drug Strategy Household Survey, there has been a 10 per cent fall in marijuana use by teenagers. The survey of 27 000 people also revealed that the use of marijuana, heroin, amphetamines and ecstasy had fallen by 23 per cent over the previous three years. Dr John Anderson of the West Mead Hospital said that the decline indicates that, when a society is told that drugs are bad, individuals respond.
At a federal level the message has been made clear: drugs are bad. The results speak for themselves. Unfortunately, in our state the news is not so good. An article in the Advertiser of 24 June 2002 stated that, according to the 2002 report on illicit drugs in South Australia, drug use had risen significantly between 1995 and 1998. We have the highest rate–this is quite a staggering figure–of marijuana use among 15 to 19 year olds in this nation. As a question to ponder, what message are we sending, as a state, by decriminalising the growth and use of marijuana? Leaving that issue to one side, I believe one of the weakest links is in rehabilitation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 3 WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS
MR McEWEN: Thank you for that. Moving on to the left.
MR DANENBERG: I am Jamnes Danenberg from Hemp SA. This is a question for Dr Graycar and Dr Ali. There have been calls from some sections of the community for a zero tolerance approach to cannabis in particular. I’m wondering if there is any evidence from the AIC or from the Social Impacts Report comparing a zero tolerance approach with the CEN approach, if that would be effective, whether it would reduce cannabis use or whether it would reduce the harms associated with cannabis use.
DR GRAYCAR: It’s very hard to make a judgment on the basis of there being no real evidence of outcomes. We know that people have used illicit substances for as long as humans have been on this earth, and used substances to alter mind states and so on. What we do know is increasing the use of substances that cause a great deal of harm is not in the interests of the community. Zero tolerance isn’t a very helpful term to describe the situation. The sorts of strategies that are really important include minimising harm, reducing risk, reducing rewards and creating some sort of well-being and harmony. As I mentioned in my talk, there are a whole range of strategies to do this and it’s important to focus on the outcomes rather than the slogans, I would think.
ASSOC. PROF. ALI: The issue of comparing consequences of differing legal options for controlling uptake of use of cannabis is something that we have looked at, and the social impact study that you refer to was a comparison of a criminal justice approach compared to the current diversion approach that operates in this state. There doesn’t appear to be evidence that increasing penalties deters either uptake of use or continuance of use of cannabis, but there is evidence that health interventions that are linked to the CEN system do have an impact on people’s continued use in intensity terms. So I guess the other major out-take of that study was to look at proportionality, whether people felt that the level of criminal justice sanction was appropriate. In the minds of the police, in the minds of the judiciary and in the minds of the citizens of this state, the system that we have in place appears to be fair and just.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY 3 WEDNESDAY 26 JUNE EXISTING STRATEGIES–THEIR STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS SOUTH AUSTRALIAN
DRUGS SUMMIT
MR McEWEN: Thank you for that. If you could show your appreciation to our expert panel for this morning’s session. Morning tea is 10 minutes away. We’ve got one final thing to do this morning and that’s to welcome the Hon. Mike Elliott to the microphone. Mike’s topic this morning:‘A law and order issue, or a health and social issue?’ Welcome Mike.
Drugs: A Law and Order Issue or a Health and Social Issue? THE HON. M.J. ELLIOTT: Let me begin by congratulating the government on this excellent initiative, and perhaps before that I should acknowledge also that we are meeting here on Kaurna land. Is it a law and order issue or a health and social issue? I’ve been very encouraged by what I’ve heard here today because I think people are increasingly realising that we are not talking about law and order: at the end of the day we are talking about health and social issues, and if we tackle those then the law and order issues largely resolve themselves.
When we discuss drugs in Australia: ‘Hypocrisy is thy name and denial is the game’. We express a desire to protect young people from drugs, yet there is carnage going on. Our young people are being butchered by our hypocrisy over alcohol–alcohol is the killer drug and yet we allow it to be glorified in the media. Alcohol equals good times, says the society sanctioned messages in the media going into lounge rooms throughout Australia. We have built a $40 million church to alcohol in the parklands. More often than not alcohol means road death; alcohol means domestic violence.
Our young people are also being condemned to a later life of poor health because of tobacco. Although electronic tobacco advertising is gone–and might I add I introduced a private member’s bill some 15 years ago to do precisely that, which the government eventually picked up–we still have a way to go. We still are seeing point of sale promotion–the packaging, etc., is still attractive. We are still seeing the Winfield girls at the racetrack, and those sorts of things. Are we serious? We know the killer drugs are alcohol and tobacco, and right now our diet, the diet of our young people, is being caffeinated. Right now the energy drinks are being laced with caffeine, chocolate bars have caffeine in them, and it is being aimed at our young people, and it’s not because you can taste it. What are we doing?
We are raging about some drugs that are causing real damage, but they are causing nothing like the damage that the legal drugs are doing and doing right now. As somebody said, I think it was yesterday: what hope has dad got with his glass of beer in one hand and his smoke in the other saying: ‘Don’t touch drugs’? And society around is sending quite a different message–as I said, ‘Hypocrisy is thy name’.
I don’t want to see drugs on the streets. I’ve got three kids aged between 14 and 20 and I really worry about them. But I’m not trying to be paranoid about it either. Are illicit drugs a problem? Yes, they are. Have illicit drugs real health and social implications? Of course they have. But hypocrites make me sick, and the politicians and other careerists of various sorts in our community who are raging about the illicit drugs and are silent on them are not helping us and are not helping the young people they claim that they are out to help.
Let’s move from the issue of hypocrisy to that of denial. The ‘get tough on drugs’ approach, which has been used for many decades, has been a spectacular failure. Why have we taken a health and social problem and turned it into a law and order problem? Why have we given police jobs they should not have been asked to do? Much of the problem, much of the crime which surrounds illicit drugs, is because they are illicit. People are stealing to get the money. People are stealing to get the drugs. Much of the harm which has been done by the illicit drugs is because they are illicit.
Why do people die of heroin overdoses? Because they don’t know what the next dose is going to actually contain–the quality is constantly varying. Why are people getting party drugs when they don’t know what’s happening next? Well, they are totally illicit. Why is stronger cannabis coming onto the market and perhaps for the first time causing problems when it didn’t use to cause the problems that it is causing in some cases? It’s largely because of the way that the illicit market is operating–HIV, hep C, all because of the illicit nature of the drugs.
The drug subculture itself exists, almost by definition, because of the illicit nature of drugs. It is so much harder to reach people once they have been alienated and pushed out into the subcultures. If there was no profit, who would be pushing? Why are tobacco and alcohol being pushed now? Because there is a profit in it. There is a profit to be made out of cannabis, and there is a profit to be made out of heroin. There is a profit to be made out of all of these. It is the profit motive that is driving the market every bit as much as demand. I am not saying, ‘Let’s rush out and legalise everything.’ I know that it might sound bit like that. What I am saying is: let’s just be a little consistent about things. Nowhere in the world has anyone had spectacular success on drug issues. America has been a spectacular failure–the outstanding failure–and they have taken the law and order approach. I am glad that Australia, bit by bit, has been going in another direction. I think we can look to places like Switzerland and the Netherlands. Do they have drug problems? Yes, they do. All Western societies have them, but I think they are moving in a direction which offers us more hope than the American direction.
Why aren’t we regulating cannabis supply? Why don’t we make it available to adults, making informed decisions through licensed outlets, getting something which is of known quality–not the really heavy stuff–where it cannot be promoted, where I would have it sold under the counter in exactly the same way as they have tobacco sold, under the counter in plain brown wrappings with information all over it, running in tandem with education programs, taxing it and using the taxes to run more programs–programs that we seem to be struggling to find the money for right now?
The conservative streak in me doesn’t say, ‘Well, let’s make heroin available over the counter.’ But it does say that if we got the problematic users and the hard core–about 5 or 10 per cent who have been identified by the Swiss–and actually make heroin prescriptions available for the people who constantly fail treatment, the Swiss experience is that eventually, and it takes a long time, most of them will get off drugs. But, at the end the day, my primary goal wouldn’t be abstinence: my primary goal would be to keep them alive. My next goal would be that they could actually re-establish family connections which they have lost. I have spoken with people who, after 20 years of being lost, once they got a heroin prescription they actually found they had a permanent home again, they started to hold down jobs, they reconnected with their families (sometimes years later–and after 20 years you can understand why years later), and they actually did come clean. But, if they didn’t, does it matter? Well, I wish that they could. But look at the alternative and look where we are driving people at this stage.
So, let’s try to use compassion, and let’s try to use regulation to handle these illicit drugs. At the same time, let’s get rid of the hypocrisy and start regulating the legal drugs as well. Why are hotels allowed to have happy hours? It is getting our young people drunk early in the night and then really getting them going to buy more drinks. Why are we allowing promotional advertising of alcohol? You can have an argument about whether or not information advertising should happen, like ‘There is a very nice wine that comes from McLaren Vale.’ The Good Time Bears is a clever ad, but it’s not the message that I want my kids to get. Why aren’t we getting rid of at-the- point-of-sale advertising, etc? Let’s be consistent across all drugs–acknowledge where the problems are, know what the real problems are, and actually know what the causes of the problems are, including even the illicit nature of drugs being a bigger problem than the drugs themselves.
As long as you have a magic wand you can say, ‘Everybody stop doing it. We wish you wouldn’t do it.’ I am really excited by what I have heard here today about saying, ‘Let’s get back into our community,’ ‘Let’s go to our schools and make our kids stronger,’ ‘Let’s make families stronger.’ Let’s do everything we can to help people make a decision not to use; or, if they make the decision to use, they’re not likely to abuse. If they abuse, they’re at least more likely to be strong enough to eventually get back out again. That is the long-term answer. But governments won’t spend money there, because that answer is going to take 10 to 15 years. That is the closest we are ever going to be to an answer to the issue. But, in the meantime, let’s just be honest with ourselves.
MR McEWEN: That should have spiked up your morning tea. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 4 THURSDAY 27 JUNE DRUGS AND COMMUNITIES: STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES AND BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS pp286-287
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: The next speaker is Miranda Gramp. MS GRAMP: I’m from RaveSafe SA. I would like to make a few comments to you about my culture–the rave culture. I heard a few people state that there are no peer educated services available for younger communities in South Australia. That’s partly correct, but I would have to disagree somewhat as I coordinate one of these volunteer services. There are also community announcements on Fresh FM that are aimed at another sector of the dance music community, a sector that might not necessarily come into contact with the RaveSafe initiative. Unfortunately, I do not know of any other services of this nature that are available to any other social or cultural circles for younger communities. RaveSafe SA has been running for two years and provides harm minimisation information and peer support for rave patrons. We have discovered a real need and demand for reliable information and a desire for an unbiased service where people can access this information and get advice for members of their community. We also provide a friendly face from whom patrons can get first-aid or help in situations where a patron may feel uncomfortable or intimidated going to security or venue staff.
I admit I have been guilty of being swayed by stereotypes before, but unfortunately there is a lot of negative publicity surrounding the rave scene. Even when promoters try to do a positive thing to protect the safety of their punters, it’s thrown in their face by the media. A stereotype of a culture of drug addicts has emerged where it is considered that all people at these parties are ecstasy amphetamine abusers with no social conscience or respect for themselves.
My experience at these parties has taught me otherwise. The majority of these punters may take drugs, but there is a fair proportion who don’t take any drugs, conservative society’s drugs of choice (alcohol and tobacco) included. However, I feel that a huge proportion of these people are using drugs recreationally, purely for fun. There is also a heightened awareness in these circles of the need for safe partying practices. Since the inception of RaveSafe I’ve found that this thirst for knowledge is spreading, and the desire for others to become informed is increasing with potential volunteers approaching us at every party we attend. Considering how much for rave scene is bashed by the media, I find it laughable that a scene that has such a bad reputation also has services initiated by ravers, run by ravers for ravers. What other youth culture can boast such a service? Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 4 THURSDAY 27 JUNE DRUGS AND COMMUNITIES: STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES AND BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS pp287-289
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: The last speaker is Mrs Roslyn Phillips. MRS PHILLIPS: I’m Ros Phillips from the Festival of Light. I would like to apologise from the outset that I am going to be politically incorrect. I’ve appreciated a lot of things about this summit, but there is one term that’s really in a sense fallen through the cracks. It’s been repeated like a mantra at every session and in many of the recommendations, but nobody’s really looked at it from an evidence based perspective. That term is ‘harm minimisation’.
It’s a policy that was first implemented in Australia in the mid to late 1980s, and one of the key policies was the provision of clean needles, which I think everybody would agree was done with the very best of intentions to prevent the spread of blood-borne diseases in drug injectors. But now that we’ve had 17 years of it I think it’s time to look back at the evidence. What has it actually done? If we look at the needle exchange programs, as they were called, they aren’t. They rapidly became needle giveaways with no requirement to return used needles. As a result, we find used needles in public parks, school grounds, all over the place–an increased risk that was not there before. We also find receptacles in public toilets.
When I was in Sydney recently, every single public toilet I went into had a little container where you put your needles. Children who see these containers ask their mums, ‘What’s this for?’ and they say, ‘It’s for drug users to put their needles in, dear’. What is this saying to our children? It’s saying that interjecting drugs is a normal part of our society, it’s just a given. What we are doing is normalising what is a very dangerous practice. Injecting pure water, just the act of injecting, is dangerous.
As the needle programs show, over 3 million were given away in South Australia last year. We are increasing a practice which is very dangerous. We have not stopped the spread of blood-borne diseases. If you graph the incidence of hep C in Australia, it rises in parallel with the needle distribution programs. There is a lot of evidence–I haven’t the time to give it all to you now–that those who use the free needles still share them, so they still get the disease. Are these programs minimising harm or are they, in fact, adding to the harm?
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: Thank you, Roslyn.
MR BROGAN: I am from SAVIVE. I manage a clean needle program–not ‘the’ clean needle program, just one outlet of it. I would have to respectfully counter some of the assertions that were made by the previous speaker. No health intervention has been researched and has a stronger evidence base than clean needle programs or needle and syringe exchange programs. If anyone wants to get any of that evidence, I can refer you to the Drug and Alcohol Services Council (DASC), NCETA, Dr Robert Ali–it is so well researched, it’s not funny.
The service that I operate is in the leafy suburb of Norwood. We have been there for 11 years, and not once have we had any complaints from local residents or the council about the impact of the program. Most people do not know that it is there. There are fewer syringes littering Norwood than probably any other suburb in Adelaide, and I would say from my travels around the place that there is less syringe littering in Adelaide than any other country in the world.
Countries that don’t have adequate clean needle programs have AIDS. They don’t just have a little bit of AIDS; they have AIDS decimating their marginalised communities. In America, AIDS is one of the biggest killers of women and children. The reason we don’t have that here is the courage of our leaders in the late 1980s and 1990s to implement harm minimisation programs, including needle exchange. If we were to forget to maintain our vigilance against it, it would not just be hepatitis C that we would have to worry about; AIDS is still there and it could still destroy this country and the lives of millions and millions of people.
I caution you not to go down the path of lowering the fence and letting this stuff in. Hepatitis C has been with us since the 1960s and 1970s. When we brought in our interventions to deal with HIV, we were dealing with a low prevalence epidemic in Australia and all we had to do was stop it spreading. If we look back at the blood that was taken from hepatitis B patients in the 1970s, we find that already, by the time we had started introducing our programs, hepatitis C had already been out of control for 20 years. It is more easily transmitted than the HIV virus. We did put out some messages in the early days that were not as good as they could have been. It is a very bleak uphill battle to contain the spread of hepatitis C, but we need more resources, more needle exchange, not less. Thank you.
THE HON. R.B. SUCH: Thank you. That concludes the last of this type of plenary session. Plenary Discussion concluded
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT DAY 5 FRIDAY 28 JUNE THE WAY FORWARD: FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT)
p-324 MR BROGAN: Damon Brogan from SAVIVE, which is the drug users harm reduction program at the Aids Council. In your eloquent introduction (and this point is also brought up by many other groups, but I thought I would make it here for the record), while you speak about alcohol and tobacco and the misuse of prescription drugs, the wording of most of your recommendations refers only to illicit drugs. I just want to reiterate the importance of returning illicit drugs education back into an alcohol and other drugs context, both because of the scale of the harms that are associated with these substances, the question of credibility and because of the ethics of the situation. THE HON. M.D. RANN: I think we should point out that when you are at school these substances are illicit. MS DUIGAN: Absolutely. THE HON. M.D. RANN: The law of South Australia is quite clear on that. These are recommendations about school-based drug education. MRS PHILLIPS: Ros Phillips from Festival of Light, and I would like to thoroughly endorse Damon Broganıs comments. I do see alcohol and tobacco as very serious problems, and part of the reason for that is that they are legal and are widely available. Therefore, any attempt to legalise other drugs currently illicit would increase the harm from them. I just wanted to say briefly that I feel uncomfortable about quite a few of the recommendations here, because I think they are saying wonderful things in nice, long, facilitating wordsand how can you object, except that, as in all things, the devil is in the detail. And when we talk about things like harm minimisation as an overarching policy, particularly in school education, are we really saying to kids, Itıs okay to use drugs as long as you use them safelyı? Of course, all kids will think, Yes, of course I can use them safely.ı Are we really sending the message that this is normal and that itıs okay, just do this, this and this? I have real problems with that, because I feel that itıs failed in other areas, and itıs failed overseas. And if you look at the results of harm minimisation, which was implemented Australia wide in 1985, weıve had increased drug use, more problems than ever, which is why we are having this summit. My comment is: I feel uncomfortable because I am not sure that some of these wonderful warm, fuzzy recommendations are really addressing the basic issues. THE HON. M.D. RANN: Phillipa? MS DUIGAN: Yes, Iıd like to respond to that. Certainly it is the case that in our working group we have discussed the issue of harm minimisation and have an understanding that it is endorsed as both national policy and state government policy in terms of an approach to drug-related issues. In terms of what harm minimisation is about, it actually has three elements. One is to do with demand reduction, which is the one that Iıve noted as the primary issue for schools. Another is to do with supply reduction to ensure that we donıt have the use of any illicit or unsanctioned use of licit substances in our schools. The third is perhaps the area that is sometimes more controversially seen as the area of harm reduction in itself. I suppose my response to you would be that I suspect that your implication about the harm minimisation approach applies perhaps to that last and third area. It is certainly one where we must recognise that, whilst students are using either medication or other substances that are available, we must reduce the harm possible to them through their own use and supply of that sort of substance to others. That is clearly a very important role in terms of duty of care for schools to be addressing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN DRUGS SUMMIT Group
2Breaking the Nexus Between Drugs and Crime MR OıCONNELL: Weıre just starting to rock the boat. The Aboriginal group rocked: weıre going to actually rock the boat itself. Okay, recommendation No. 4. Please bear in mind that our request was actually to look at the nexus between drugs and crime and how we could break that nexus. And thatıs why thereıs some overlap between what we say and what other groups have said, because we have given some credit to the things that perhaps other groups have said in the context of breaking the nexus between drugs and crime. So, as to recommendation No 4: law reform to reduce crime and minimise harm associated with drug use, the working group recommends that a broad review of the Controlled Substances Act and other drug laws, for example, our liquor licensing laws, be conducted to determine the efficacy of those laws, having regard to the primary objects of crime reduction and harm minimisation. We donıt necessarily see those terms as being diametrically opposed, as some people may have implied in some of their other comments, although we concede that they are a vexed issue. For that purpose, we have determined some principles that we believe ought to be taken into account, and I will just quickly skim over those: Arguments that apply to the most appropriate mechanisms of control for one drug need not apply to others: this is a diverse issue and we are dealing with a diverse range of individuals. Control mechanisms should be considered in terms of the intended outcomes, and an analysis of control mechanisms should attempt to estimate their effects on consumption levels and patterns of use. Arguments about the consequences of drug use should be separated from arguments about morals. Options should be explored on the basis of evidence of the harm caused to individuals, families and communities, and it should be stated what harm a policy is intended to address. The harms resulting from control mechanisms themselves should not be greater than the harms prevented by them. Decisions should be influenced by realistic assessments of the costs of each option, as well as the benefits. So, with those criteria in mind, we went through a number of issues that we think ought to guide that review about the efficacy about drug laws. Iıll go through those now, if that is okay. So, the group
recommends that: b) The cannabis
expiation notice scheme should be reviewed with regard to: c) The law pertaining to position of cannabis paraphernalia should be repealed. d) Previous convictions for simple possession offences, including possession of cannabis paraphernalia, should be expunged. e) The use of pill testing (and, if I could qualify this, someone made a comment to us, as we were writing this, about pill testing kits and their reliability, and we acknowledge this) should be investigated as a way of enhancing the early warning system utilised by the police, and others, to reduce drug-related harm, including overdose. f) There should be a ban on promotional advertising which may encourage young people to consume alcohol and; g) There should be a ban on promotional advertising which may encourage young people to consume tobacco. Is now the time I duck? Thank you. THE HON. M.D. RANN: Thank you. Are there any comments, queries or questions? Please come forward. MR DANENBERG: Jamnes Danenberg, representing HEMP SA, and also some of the 76 000 South Australians who used cannabis last week, and some of the 476 000 South Australians who have ever used cannabis in their lifetime. I think it is very important that we support this recommendation. I think thereıs a lot of stuff in it. Itıs very important that we donıt criminalise our young peoplegive them a permanent criminal conviction for the rest of their lives that will haunt their job opportunities and prospects, their accommodation prospects, affect their families and personal relationships and interfere with their travel opportunities. I know that is the case now, and I know many people who have been affected. We had a man in our group who has been clean and sober, drug-free, for over 30 years but, because he has a criminal conviction, because of a minor offence in his youth, he can no longer travel overseas to certain countries. His job opportunities have been affected. His potential career and life have been seriously and detrimentally affected by a permanent criminal conviction. Itıs my understanding that that measure is not opposed by law enforcement. Perhaps they might like to speak to that though afterwards. It also my understanding that law enforcement do not object to the abolition of the laws in relation to cannabis implements. As I said earlier in the summit, we have a situation where, for perfectly good public health reasons, syringes are legal and legally available and yet cannabis implants are not legal. They can be legally bought, yet it becomes a criminal offence that people can and are being busted for and receiving criminal convictions for possession of those implements. We have had recommendations from the South Australian Legislative Council select committee that that offence be abolished. I believe the New South Wales government has also acted in that regard, and I understand, as I said, that law enforcement is actually supportive of the recommendation, but they might like to confirm that perhaps if they can. In terms of medical and therapeutic use of cannabis, weıve had very clear indications from overseas studies, in-depth scientific evaluations of the efficacy of the medical and therapeutic use of cannabis, to make a recommendation. In some cases it is the best alternative for people with some severe and intractable medical conditions including, but not limited to, glaucoma, chemotherapy associated with cancer treatment, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, wasting conditions associated with HIV, AIDS and others and chronic pain of course, for many people. Itıs not say itıs for everyone but it is to say that we should immediately begin clinical trials, which were recommended by the Legislative Council select committee about five years ago. I would also ask that everyone give very serious consideration to evaluating the regulated availability approach, remembering clearly that the evidence (and I underline that point) in Holland shows that fewer young people use cannabis with a regulated availability approach than they do here in Australia or the United States or indeed in the UK. Prohibition is simply part of the problem, not part of the solution when it comes to cannabis use, and we really must move forward and look at the evidence, which shows that there are better ways of dealing with cannabis use, not to ignore the harms that it causes, but to treat those harms as health issues and not as criminal issues. I mentioned criminal convictions. The other point is the number of plants expiable. We feel very strongly that one plant is insufficient for a personal user. If itıs grown outdoors thereıs all sorts of problems with that, from a pragmatic point of view, and we need a review of that to look at the evidence surrounding it. Also, the
option of receiving educational material and/or treatment, as an alternative
to a fine, is one thatıs been recommended, and I think it is going to
be implemented in the Western Australian CEN model. They had a very
in-depth look at the South Australian system, comparing it to their
own zero tolerance/total prohibition approach, and discovered that,
on examination of the evidence, not only did fewer young people use
cannabis in South Australia and across the board but also there were
far better social outcomes as a result of the CEN system. Western Australia
is moving to a CEN system with a two plant limit. They are looking at
providing an option where educational material be provided as an alternative
to a fine because, as we are aware, over 50 per cent of these CEN fines
that are issued right now, and since the beginning of the scheme in
1987, have not been expiated because people simply canıt afford to pay
them, or for whatever reason, and people are ending up with criminal
convictions for cannabis use which, as I said, theyıll have with them
for the rest of their lives. MR HENNING: My nameıs Rhys Henning and Iım from the Moore Street Clinic. The area that Iıd like to address in this is that the harms that result from control mechanisms should of themselves not be greater than the harms prevented by them. I work with a number of people who are currently in rehabilitation or currently using sporadically. I would actually like to put a suggestion as h) on this, and that would read: that the simple detection of an illicit substance, particularly for those people who are in a treatment program, in urine, blood or saliva (and that is something that has been pushed in the papers just recently, and it concerns me greatly) should not be allowed to prevent the return to employment, because people who are discriminated against because of the fact that they have a detected illicit substance (and cannabis, if weıre talking about that, can last for several weeks) is actually preventing people getting back into the mainstream. THE HON. A.J. REDFORD: I am a member of the Legislative Review Committee and we currently have the regulations concerning the number of cannabis plants before us. |