One of the things I’d like to do on the Drug Blog is post information from regular readers. One such reader is Greg Iverson, who’s put forward the following thoughts, based on some recent emails on the ADCA Update list:

====================

Is it just me or is anyone else gob-smacked by the constant lies,
half-truths and stream of misinformation that comes out places like the DFA
and the variety of individuals involved with that group?

I thought that they were a Christian based group – at least, the majority of
the lead members of the DFA seem to be heavily involved in their respective
churches.

Now, and pardon me if I am wrong here, but don’t these same people preach
that one should avoid lying or ‘bearing false witness’ at all costs?

How do they balance the fact that they deliberately send out misleading (and
sometimes, straight out false) information and their supposed Christian
values on telling the truth?

All I can see that this tactic does, is to stop any actual accurate
information that they may come across to be dismissed as more of the same
ill-informed rhetoric (not very smart on their behalf if you ask me). We
have learnt from prior experience that the information that they send out
cannot be relied upon – it has been shown on the Drugtalk list in many previous
cases.

Hypocrisy is never a pretty thing to see.

Is it done to catch the attention of the media (who will always look for
sensationalism)? Is it being done as a spoiling tactic to stop actual good
work and information from being disseminated? Is it due to some outdated
determination to stick to a dogma?

I am not saying that all people involved in these groups behave in this
manner, but there certainly seems to be a hard core group on DrugTalk
and Update that are not great advertisements for their various religious
bodies that they proudly claim to represent. I’d be interested to hear
others suggestion on this

At least Colliss – although I feel he is more often than not wrong in his
opinions – doesn’t stoop that low (unless I missed something sometime, which
I am sure others here will correct me on).

Greg Iverson

====================

The National Drug Research Institute has released some research on indigenous Australians and alcohol use:

====================
Alcohol causes the death of an Indigenous Australian every 38 hours on average, according to new research from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI).

NDRI has found that the deaths of 1145 Indigenous Australians between 2000 and 2004 were caused by alcohol. The cause of death for more than half was alcoholic liver cirrhosis or suicide, and the average age of death from an alcohol-attributable cause was about 35.

The figures are contained in the National Alcohol Indicators Project (NAIP) Bulletin 11, Trends in alcohol-attributable deaths among Indigenous Australians, 1998-2004, released today.

Researchers say trends and numbers of alcohol-attributable deaths vary widely both between and within State borders, which means targeted region-specific approaches are needed to improve Indigenous health.

Bulletin co-author and NDRI Senior Research Fellow Dr Tanya Chikritzhs said this was the first NAIP bulletin to document numbers of alcohol-attributable harms among Indigenous Australians.

“This kind of information is important in planning our response to Indigenous health issues and in showing where resources should be directed for the maximum benefit,” Dr Chikritzhs said.

NDRI Indigenous Australian Research Team Leader Dennis Gray said the figures, which should be regarded as conservative estimates, showed Australia still had a long way to go to address the inequality between the health of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

“If we are serious about addressing this disparity and reducing death rates among Indigenous Australians, we need to focus on the underlying social causes of that ill health,” Professor Gray said.

“For instance, suicide is the most frequent alcohol caused death among Indigenous men, which reflects the despair that many Indigenous people feel.”

====================

Indigenous Health is one of the core health issues in Australia and one that by any measure needs further work done, whether it be research, treatment or prevention. It’s also an area that might provide a way forward for opposing philosophical viewpoints on ATOD issues.

Specifically: a number of indigenous communities have requested that they become dry communities ( Click here for some Queensland examples) – this is an abstinence approach and also an approach that the community has to some extent agreed needs to occur.

The argument could be made that (within reason), a specific community’s needs in relation to ATOD becomes the driver for change. Would this then avoid some of the philosophical conflicts that impeded progress in some communities? The only downside I can see is in drawing the overall boundaries that a community would need to work within. Some indigenous communities have led the way in showing how successful change can be made – is it possible on a wider level?

One of our readers, Richard, mentioned a work activity he was involved in related to Inebriates and it reminded me of the old Inebriates legislation that existed in most states. Correct me if I’m wrong but the legislation is either non-existent or defunct acorss the board. I remember investigating using the NSW legislation in the early 1990’s and even then it was a long stretch as it was essentially impossible to get placement for a person under the ACt even if a magistrate was willing to use what was extremely old legislation from the 1920’s.

Has anyone had any experience with using such legislation and are there any valid arguments in regard to re-introducing similar laws to compel people to seek treament?

As promised, I’ve created a specific section to discuss the upcoming NSW State Election and any ATOD issues covered during the campaign. Apologies to all the readers not in NSW but I will create specific entries for other state elections as they come up as well as the Federal election. Also, it will give an opportunity for each state to learn from the others as far as policy goes.

A lot of readers work for the NSW Government so understandably there’ll be a reluctance to ‘get political’ – but I’m more interested in analysing the potentials behind each announcement during the campaign (which has essentially started).

To get things rolling, what are the predictable policy announcements likely to be made? Police numbers has been a story this week, and that obviously has both positive and negative implications for the AOD field. But what else is likely to be announced?

I’ve had some feedback on usability of site and have changed to the current look – my main aim was to give more prominence to everyone’s comments, which are the point of the site. Any other feedback welcome!

First to the inspiration for this post:

=====================

Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform

invites Updaters to a

PUBLIC MEETING

(sponsored by Mary Porter (MLA))
on

Tuesday 6

February, 2007 at 12.30 pm

in the Reception Room, ACT Legislative Assembly
Civic Square, London Circuit, Canberra City

Topic:

Evidence-based drug policy – myth or reality?
– the ways in which research evidence is used or not used in policy
making processes

Speaker:

Alison Ritter, Associate Professor, National Drug and Alcohol
Research Centre and Director, the Drug Policy Modelling Program (DPMP)

Alison will outline the “ideal model” – where evidence drives policy,
then describe some of the more realistic models about how drug policy
making happens,
and point out where evidence fits in.   She will use a number of
examples to illustrate.

(The DPMP is funded by the Colonial Foundation Trust.)

A cuppa and refreshments will be available.
Enquiries to: 02 6254 2961

This will be of interest to all people involved in the drug and
alcohol sector but will be of special interest to those involved in
drug policy.

A copy of the flyer to pin on your notice board can be downloaded
from ffdlr.org.au

Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform
http://www.ffdlr.org.au
mailto:mcconnell@ffdlr.org.au
61 (0)2 6254 2961
==========

This looks like an interesting afternoon’s discussion, and it got me to thinking about ‘evidenced-based’ – what is it about current research that prevents widespread acceptance of its findings? Lets use two hypothetical examples from different sides of the fence:

1. A widespread study is conducted on the impact of abstinence-based drug education in schools that shows the approach is superior to any other forms of drug education in terms of long term drug usage rates amongst 12-24 year olds.

2. Another study on operation of safe injecting rooms shows that there are lower death rates and no increase in usage rates in communities have such a centre.

In both these hypothetical cases they are evidence-based, but you can be fairly certain that both pieces of evidence are not going to be accepted as legitimate by sections of the AOD community. In such cases, how do you develop evidence-based drug policy except on an ad-hoc basis?

Yesterday a working party announced a raft of recommendations in relation to reducing road deaths amongst P-plate drivers, which has been widely reported.

An obvious question I’d have is related to the recommendation that P-platers not be able to carry more than one other passenger late at night until they have reached 21-years of age. How will this affect the promotions historically done around designated drivers? Now, any group of 18-21 year olds going out drinking have no personal transport option, which can be an only option in rural areas in particular.

Are the potential benefits of the new restrictions going to outweigh the potential risks the proposed legislation will create?

The next Federal election is 99% likely to occur this year, with a resurgent Labor party under the leadership of Kevin Rudd. Would anyone like to make predictions on any AOD policy issues that may arise?

One prediction from me: “The Ice Epidemic” will feature in health policy announcements from both sides 😉

Hi everyone,

Was just interested to see if anyone had prognostications for 2007 as far as AOD goes? I’m thinking particularly of the political climate. The NSW state election is first cab off the rank in March – I can’t see any great changes in approach from a Iemma government successfully re-elected and I’m assuming a change in policy would occur if Peter Debnam’s team are elected. I’ll start a seperate post for the NSW election during January – it might provide for some interesting discussion.

On the Federal front, it’s most likely an election will occur during 2007 as well. Institutions like the ANCD seem to be really well ensconced at that level and I’d be surprised if they were changes should there be a change in government, but again, an ALP government would take a different approach to health policy and this would be reflected in AOD policy. I’ll start a seperate post as well on the Federal election in a few months but in the meantime, anyone have some predictions for 2007?

Thanks to all those who’ve embraced the site at this early stage, I hope you have a great break if you’re getting one. There’ll be limited new content until the 30th December but obviously the site is available the whole time for discussion to continue.

And remember, any suggestions you have for the site are always welcome.

Merry Xmas!