Harm Min Vs Zero Tolerance and an Alcoholic Segue
Firstly let me make my opinion clear. Drug use and drug addiction is a social problem. It has not and never will be a legal or moral issue. There is no simple magic formula that will make the problem go away. Man has used mind altering substances since they got down out of the trees.
You do have people arguing that they have the magic formula. Let’s take a look at the players and their arguments.
The Conservative view. Those on the right side of politics like Mr Howard and Mr Bush view drug use as more of a moral or legal issue and have a Zero Tolerance approach and believe the only way to stamp it out is a tough on drugs approach. Mr Howard even named his new policy “Tough on Drugs.” The main focus off the policy was to reduce supply through stricter border controls and control of precursors like ephedrine (used to make amphetamines) and to reduce demand through public education. Basically the thought was if you tell everyone “Drugs are bad mmkay." Then they won’t use them. (hahahahaha!) In the USA its more along the line of "If you use them then you are a bad person and we will throw your arse in jail."
These are the type of people that protest outside the medically supervised injecting centre. I am looking at you Fred Nile.
The strategy involved giving money to law enforcement and treatment programs promoting abstinence as well as a nice little advertising campaign telling us all that drugs are bad.
On the other side of the drug debating fence you have the leftist hippies. Who (rightly) state that you can’t stop people using drugs so your best is to reduce the harm associated with drug use. These people advocate needle exchanges, injecting centres and mostly unsuccessful pharmacotherapies. They are based on a public health and or psychosocial model.
So who is right in this debate? Well neither is, there really is not any right or wrong. You need to be tough on drug supply and you need to educate people about the dangers of drugs including alcohol.
Okay time for a segue. Alcohol is a drug. Make no mistake about it. I’ll say it again Alcohol is a drug and a poisonous and addictive one at that. It just also happens to be a widely used drug because of its social acceptance and widespread legal availability. There is little education about the dangers of alcohol consumption. The government ads related to the dangers of alcohol generally relate to the social dangers of binge drinking and getting too drunk. Like turning into a promiscuous whore or crashing your car and killing people.
The world can’t even decide on what low risk drinking levels are. Here look for yourself.
http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/biggy.htm
Whilst I was looking around I found this at the bottom of the page of The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand.
The upper limits for responsible drinking are endorsed by the following organisations:
Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)
DB Breweries
Health Promotion Forum
Land Transport Safety Authority
Lion Nathan
Public Health Commission
Royal Australian College of Physicians
Te Utuhina Manaakitanga Trust
Wine Institute
Isn’t that just fucking hilarious a bunch of breweries endorsing an alcohol advisory council? Great stuff. There is no education about the health effects of drinking alcohol. Alcohol is the only drug that affects every part of your body after using it. Not to mention the problems associated with intoxication. I won’t write them all so I’ll just quote the health department of South Australia’s website:-
Intoxication is the most common cause of alcohol-related problems, leading to injuries and premature deaths. As a result, intoxication accounts for two-thirds of the years of life lost from drinking. Alcohol is responsible for:
30% of road accidents
44% of fire injuries
34% of falls and drownings
16% of child abuse cases
12% of suicides
10% of industrial accidents
As well as deaths, short-term effects of alcohol result in illness and loss of work productivity (e.g. hangovers, drink driving offences). In addition, alcohol contributes to criminal behaviour - in Australia over 70% of prisoners convicted of violent assaults have drunk alcohol before committing the offence and more than 40% of domestic violence incidents involve alcohol.
Long-term effects
Each year approximately 3000 people die as a result of excessive alcohol consumption and around 65 000 people are hospitalised. Long-term excessive alcohol consumption is associated with:
Heart damage
Nerve Damage
High blood pressure and stroke
Liver damage
Cancers of the digestive system
Other digestive system disorders (e.g. stomach ulcers)
Sexual impotence and reduced fertility
Increasing risk of breast cancer
Sleeping difficulties
Brain damage with mood and personality changes
Concentration and memory problems
In addition to health problems, alcohol also impacts on relationships, finances, work, and may result in legal problems.
Nice drug eh? Yet it gets none of the attention of illegal drugs or even smoking. In 2005 the government bowed to pressure and made brewing companies put the number of standard drinks in each of their products on the labelling and also made then put a responsible drinking message in all their advertising. So they now put tiny little messages in their ads. Chaser recently took them to task over it. Watch here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMiyQPV1gM0
There is currently a lobby trying to get warning labels on alcohol similar to those on cigarettes. There chance of success however is incredibly grim.
Anyway where was I?
Oh yeah Harm Minimisation vs Zero Tolerance and who is right. Well as I said neither, both strategies have their place and should be used in conjunction with each other as each on their own is a failure. Example Unites States has a Zero Tolerance approach and as a result has an over crowded jail system and ludicrously high levels of HIV and hep C infection amongst injecting drug users. Harm minimisation on its own is preferable to zero tolerance but you then encourage criminal behaviour and drug tourism (see Netherlands) and limit treatment options for those wishing to stop.
Well this column turned out pointless but at least I got to rant about alcohol and its dangers.
You do have people arguing that they have the magic formula. Let’s take a look at the players and their arguments.
The Conservative view. Those on the right side of politics like Mr Howard and Mr Bush view drug use as more of a moral or legal issue and have a Zero Tolerance approach and believe the only way to stamp it out is a tough on drugs approach. Mr Howard even named his new policy “Tough on Drugs.” The main focus off the policy was to reduce supply through stricter border controls and control of precursors like ephedrine (used to make amphetamines) and to reduce demand through public education. Basically the thought was if you tell everyone “Drugs are bad mmkay." Then they won’t use them. (hahahahaha!) In the USA its more along the line of "If you use them then you are a bad person and we will throw your arse in jail."
These are the type of people that protest outside the medically supervised injecting centre. I am looking at you Fred Nile.
The strategy involved giving money to law enforcement and treatment programs promoting abstinence as well as a nice little advertising campaign telling us all that drugs are bad.
On the other side of the drug debating fence you have the leftist hippies. Who (rightly) state that you can’t stop people using drugs so your best is to reduce the harm associated with drug use. These people advocate needle exchanges, injecting centres and mostly unsuccessful pharmacotherapies. They are based on a public health and or psychosocial model.
So who is right in this debate? Well neither is, there really is not any right or wrong. You need to be tough on drug supply and you need to educate people about the dangers of drugs including alcohol.
Okay time for a segue. Alcohol is a drug. Make no mistake about it. I’ll say it again Alcohol is a drug and a poisonous and addictive one at that. It just also happens to be a widely used drug because of its social acceptance and widespread legal availability. There is little education about the dangers of alcohol consumption. The government ads related to the dangers of alcohol generally relate to the social dangers of binge drinking and getting too drunk. Like turning into a promiscuous whore or crashing your car and killing people.
The world can’t even decide on what low risk drinking levels are. Here look for yourself.
http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/biggy.htm
Whilst I was looking around I found this at the bottom of the page of The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand.
The upper limits for responsible drinking are endorsed by the following organisations:
Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC)
DB Breweries
Health Promotion Forum
Land Transport Safety Authority
Lion Nathan
Public Health Commission
Royal Australian College of Physicians
Te Utuhina Manaakitanga Trust
Wine Institute
Isn’t that just fucking hilarious a bunch of breweries endorsing an alcohol advisory council? Great stuff. There is no education about the health effects of drinking alcohol. Alcohol is the only drug that affects every part of your body after using it. Not to mention the problems associated with intoxication. I won’t write them all so I’ll just quote the health department of South Australia’s website:-
Intoxication is the most common cause of alcohol-related problems, leading to injuries and premature deaths. As a result, intoxication accounts for two-thirds of the years of life lost from drinking. Alcohol is responsible for:
30% of road accidents
44% of fire injuries
34% of falls and drownings
16% of child abuse cases
12% of suicides
10% of industrial accidents
As well as deaths, short-term effects of alcohol result in illness and loss of work productivity (e.g. hangovers, drink driving offences). In addition, alcohol contributes to criminal behaviour - in Australia over 70% of prisoners convicted of violent assaults have drunk alcohol before committing the offence and more than 40% of domestic violence incidents involve alcohol.
Long-term effects
Each year approximately 3000 people die as a result of excessive alcohol consumption and around 65 000 people are hospitalised. Long-term excessive alcohol consumption is associated with:
Heart damage
Nerve Damage
High blood pressure and stroke
Liver damage
Cancers of the digestive system
Other digestive system disorders (e.g. stomach ulcers)
Sexual impotence and reduced fertility
Increasing risk of breast cancer
Sleeping difficulties
Brain damage with mood and personality changes
Concentration and memory problems
In addition to health problems, alcohol also impacts on relationships, finances, work, and may result in legal problems.
Nice drug eh? Yet it gets none of the attention of illegal drugs or even smoking. In 2005 the government bowed to pressure and made brewing companies put the number of standard drinks in each of their products on the labelling and also made then put a responsible drinking message in all their advertising. So they now put tiny little messages in their ads. Chaser recently took them to task over it. Watch here.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMiyQPV1gM0
There is currently a lobby trying to get warning labels on alcohol similar to those on cigarettes. There chance of success however is incredibly grim.
Anyway where was I?
Oh yeah Harm Minimisation vs Zero Tolerance and who is right. Well as I said neither, both strategies have their place and should be used in conjunction with each other as each on their own is a failure. Example Unites States has a Zero Tolerance approach and as a result has an over crowded jail system and ludicrously high levels of HIV and hep C infection amongst injecting drug users. Harm minimisation on its own is preferable to zero tolerance but you then encourage criminal behaviour and drug tourism (see Netherlands) and limit treatment options for those wishing to stop.
Well this column turned out pointless but at least I got to rant about alcohol and its dangers.
posted by Darren at 11:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home