« You said it | HomePage | Binge drinking in Australia. »
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
Comments
As we all know, there are lies, damn lies and newspapers.
Posted by: Kahless | Tuesday, 13 May 2008
But Tony?
Who did the research of the Fitzroy Crossing thing before and after the alcohol prohibition? And - as your first picture states to my mind - are these research findings thorough and objective and - who is Carl O’Callaghan anyway?
Also, how many clients does the APS get from substance abusers including their families and other people close to or affected by these substance abuser clients? How objective is the APS in their document and research?
Furthermore - they're (the APS) really good at referencing! Thanks for posting that one Tony.
Happy Tuesday to you... roses
Posted by: roses | Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Almost makes me want to take up being a doctor or a camel that picture Grafitti. So are you implying via the "holey moley" that the APS has it right this time?
The next wave for these marginalised communities is there welfare payments being deposited into some kind of card account of which they can only spend on food and other good things as opposed to the bad things such as ciggies and beers.
kenoath
Posted by: kenoath | Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Roses,
Carl is the Police Commissioner in WA.
The APS would have researched this whole are in considerable detail. The reference list was like 3 pages long. These thing are used in Govt policing making (sometimes, like excluding drug policy!!!) so they are very thoroughly done.
Tony
Posted by: Tony | Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Kenoath,
I hope the APS have got it wrong and the Fitzroy Crossing plan works. It is very unlikely to based on past experience but if it did it would be a ground breaking piece of social engineering that would have ramifications around the globe.
graffiti
Posted by: Graffiti | Tuesday, 13 May 2008
What usually happens when the government or governing authorities step in and become the nations 'Parent'? I guess generally millions of people get gassed to death or thrown into mass graves, or when they finally are given permission to live a democratic type 'freedom' they starve and are unable to provide for them selves - just stuff like that. That's what history would show us.
Then again, there is the other side i guess. The side where we could learn to see the liberties we are offered and do indeed live - i mean 'actually notice' the up side of things, and appreciate it all. Actually notice the life we have rather the things we don't have. Easy for me to say i guess. I'm just a spoiled brat. It's just that... i'm a spoiled brat and i still complain. There's a lot of us around.
Back to the books for this little black duck. Happy day to you... roses
Posted by: roses | Wednesday, 14 May 2008
That is a good point Roses about a government being a parent.
In Aust that has happen for a hundred years with the aborigines. They are the Child and the government switches between Critical Parent and Rescuing Parent. The problem with that is it never gets any where. In the long run neither party progresses or grows
tony
Posted by: Tony | Wednesday, 14 May 2008