« 2008-05-11 | HomePage | 2008-05-14 »
Monday, 12 May 2008
Prohibition history in the making
Last week the Australian Psychological Society (APS) release its various position statements on substance use in Australia. Being a member of that organisation I got a copy posted to me. These position statements are serious business that the APS looks at very carefully and they put a lot of work into them. The areas are researched in great detail.
Here is a few paragraphs from these substantive documents:
----------------------------
“In Australian history, laws regarding the legality or illegality of certain drugs have been politically driven, and had little to do with the level of use or possible harms that the substances themselves might cause. For example, the restriction of opium began in Queensland in 1897, with the Aboriginal Protection and Sale of
Opium Act (see Berkhout & Robinson, 1999). This Act made it unlawful for doctors, chemists and wholesale druggists to possess or supply opium, but only if it was intended for sale to Aboriginal peoples”. (Page 3)
“Importantly, prohibitionist and ‘drug war’ approaches have been shown,
historically, to have little impact on levels of substance use, and even less impact on the level of harm associated with substance use. The small gains that law and order campaigns and prohibition approaches have achieved have not been lasting (Lang, 2004). While effective prohibitions have resulted in temporary decreases in the use of targeted substances, other consequences of prohibition have negated this impact. These other consequences include: supply sources finding other destinations for their trade; supply sources eventually developing new supply routes into the original destination; and other substances filling the gap in supply.
Consequently, little reduction is achieved in the level of overall usage. Increased
money spent on supply reduction, through criminal justice and customs, has generally paralleled increased, rather than decreased, consumption of an ever- greater variety of substances, both licit and illicit. This does not mean that these approaches do not have their place, but rather that they cannot be the sole basis of substance use regulation”. (Page 4)
(End quote)
----------------------
Holley Molley
This as I said is from the APS, one of the peak bodies in Australia charged with guiding government on the psychological health of all Australian’s.
Back on October 27th, 2007 I wrote a post with this
The West Australian newspaper reported it today. This is extraordinary news!!! Fitzroy Crossing, a very remote town in northern Australia has a very bad history of alcoholism and domestic violence particularly amongst its aboriginal inhabitants. News laws, only a few months old now only allow for the sale of low strength beer in this very isolated town. Carl O’Callaghan reports that in the past few months there has been a 30 percent drop in domestic violence and many families and children have been able to enjoy a full nights sleep for the first time in years. This is due to the alcohol prohibition.
---------------------
Oh well. Either Fitzroy Crossing is going to end up worse off than it was before the prohibition was commenced or it will be an extraordinary social achievement in the entire history of Australia. I wonder which one it will be?
Graffiti
16:02 Permalink | Comments (7) | Email this