Poll Results: Drug Free Australia’s role in ATOD professional discussion

Back in February, we started a poll on the role of Drug Free Australia in regard to professional email lists such as the ADCA Update list.

The final results in and show that there’s some mixed views on the role of non-government lobby groups promoting their objectives in professional forums. Specifically, three quarters of those surveys prefer no such mixing of messages. Let’s start a discussion on this: do scientific and moral approaches work, and if so, when?

5 thoughts on “Poll Results: Drug Free Australia’s role in ATOD professional discussion

  1. Andris Banders

    Start your own update program. 22% is a reasonable “market share.” I don;t get your topic. Are you suggesting moral is the opposite of scientific in some way??? If so, that view could do withs some more analysis.

  2. Jenny Tinworth

    Could you tell us how many people participated in the survey? While the percentages are interesting, it would give perspective if we knew how many people responded.

  3. Craig Mills

    Not surprising either but lets remember not to throw the baby out with the bathwater..a debate consists of a discussion and conversation between two sides. Its important that by continuing a conversation regarding these issues that all sides are heard and that one viewpoint does not artificially take precedence over another.
    The interesting thing here is that the concept of ‘evidence based practice’ is being used as a two edged sword. The enlightened (as they should) hold up ‘evidence’ as the shining beacon of truth and goodness that leads the way forward against the forces of darkness and if you are not with us you must by definition be against us. But any one with a vested interest is able to find evidence of whatever quality (generally) to support their view and, generally speaking, the silent majority of people with their noses to the grindstone have neither the time or the inclination to sift through the miasma of half truths and crackpot science to sort it out. The real risk is that with an over reliance on good evidence change for the better may be compromised because the average punter practitioner becomes frightened of ridicule from his or her peers by not being completely evidence focused and being accused of poor practice and benighted attitudes.
    The key is to come primarily from a solid base of ‘good’ science (which should ipso facto be morally sound science), to implement clinician led interventions and then take the time to document and reflect on your results and either change or go back to the drawing board. Make the most of the opportunity for learning presented by this remembering that bad results teach us something as well.
    The danger with freezing out the ‘other side’ from the debate and discussions is that we lose sight of what they are doing, saying and to whom. Casting them out is only going to strengthen their resolve and not necessarily drive a stake through their dark, reactionary hearts; we need to keep them close, continually challenge the validity of their viewpoint and ensure that they do not insinuate themselves into a position of influence where they have the ear of policy makers and that most importantly, balance in the debate is maintained. This is our role, after all it already happened once and if it happens again we only have ourselves to blame.

  4. admin Post author

    HI there,

    Jenny: only 74 people voted in the poll after the tampering attempt. Prior to resetting in, well over 400 votes were received but the majority were from the same IP address.

    Andris: not suggesting moral is opposite of scientific’ just that great care needs to be taken when the two are combined, just as great care needs to be taken if ‘immoral’ science is being undertaken.

    Craig: thanks for your very thoughtful comments.

Comments are closed.