Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Is the Federal Government’s Drug Policy “hardline”, or just hard-hearted?

By Esther Singer - posted Thursday, 4 November 2004


Many in the health and drug sector believe that the Howard Government’s Tough on Drugs strategy isn’t working. Critics cite an alarming rise in Hepatitis C infection rates and the criminalisation and incarceration of addicts as evidence that Tough on Drugs means getting tough on some of the most marginalised members of our society - drug users.

So how did we get to be “tough on drugs”? And isn’t it time we heard drug users’ perspectives on all this?

Since 1998, when the Howard Government launched a new National Drug Strategy, Tough on Drugs, there has been a shift away from talking about drug use as a health issue to a more punitive approach.

Advertisement

It’s a far cry from the feeling two decades ago when Australians watched then Prime Minister Bob Hawke weep on national television when asked about drug problems. Hawke later revealed that his daughter was a heroin user. This was the impetus for a new focus in national policy, and in 1985 the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse was launched, with all Australian State and Federal Governments adopting “harm reduction” as the official policy. Although most funding still went to law enforcement, the change paved the way for later developments to reduce drug-related harm; such as Needle and Syringe Programs (NSPs), initiated in response to the risk of a major HIV outbreak among injecting drug users.

Harm reduction takes a neutral approach to drug use, rather than a moral one, and emphasises programmes that respect the dignity of drug users and are supported by research. In practice it can mean education about safe drug use, de-criminalisation to remove the harm caused by drug users’ interactions with the justice system and funding NSPs, which were the flagship project of Australia’s harm reduction era. NSPs now include over 3,000 outlets where clean injecting equipment can be obtained. These range from health services, hospitals and pharmacies to dedicated needle exchanges and mobile services.

Australia’s approach has been internationally recognised, particularly our effectiveness in stemming an HIV outbreak.

In 1997 the ACT prescription heroin trial was approved by a majority of Commonwealth and State Health and Police Ministers. The Commonwealth Health and Justice Ministers were among those who supported the trial but this did not prevent the decision being overruled by Federal Cabinet, in the wake of a concerted campaign by the tabloid press and talkback radio. But Howard had not counted on community interest and support for the heroin trial (up to 45 per cent according to some polls) and was reportedly stung by the criticism he copped following the Cabinet veto.

In a bid to regain some support the Tough on Drugs strategy was hastily written. It pledged to pour millions more into law enforcement, and (unsurprisingly, considering the PM’s penchant for the mass mail-out) an education pack was sent to all households. An advisory body, the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) was also established to ensure the non-government sector had a say in policy direction. Conservative Christian stalwart, Salvation Army Major Brian Watters, currently heads the ANCD and members include researchers, managers of treatment services, education staff and even a parent representative from family organisation Toughlove. Yet there is no representative from drug user groups.

Annie Madden is one of the most high profile injecting drug users in the policy community. She’s the Executive Officer of the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users’ League (AIVL), the peak body representing injecting drug users nationally. She argues that Tough on Drugs “has pushed us back to a very base level. … ‘Zero tolerance’ paints harm reduction initiatives as ‘sending the wrong message’.” And as long as the government worries about sending the “right message” about drugs, it is powerless to address the real health and social effects of drug use.

Advertisement

The results of sending an unambiguous message can clearly be seen in the United States, where zero tolerance policies have prevented federal funding being used for NSPs or education to reduce drug-related harm. The outcome - over 30 per cent of the 40,000 new HIV infections every year is estimated to be the result of injecting drug use.

And now Australia faces the impact of a moralising policy. Hepatitis C infection rates increased by 45 per cent during the first 4 years of being "tough on drugs". One Australian is now infected every half an hour: just over 90 per cent of these infections are due to injecting drug use.

In an extraordinary interview with journalist Mischa Schubert on Meet the Press late last year Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott stated, “Frankly, ‘just say no’ is probably a pretty good message to things like illegal drugs”.

In response, Steve Liebke, who works at the Australian Hepatitis Council and is also a member of the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy (CAHMA) says that by virtue of its policies, the Federal Government is “complicit” in the epidemic and that it “has to take responsibility” for the fact that more that 1 per cent of the Australian population is now infected with a preventable, potentially debilitating disease.

Emily Hayes, a worker with Melbourne’s mobile needle exchange, Foot Patrol, agrees. Hayes works with the most marginalised of drug users - those who have nowhere but the streets to use. She distributes clean syringes and needles paid for by the Victorian State Government. But the service has to fund other injecting equipment, like spoons, torniquets and sterile water, by contracting out its services. So workers do syringe disposal for the local council and institutions to top up the coffers.
 
Hayes took me on a tour of Melbourne’s injecting rooms: tiny carparks, hidden lanes. We noticed soft drink bottle lids among the used fits. She explained that these are used to mix up in because, at the moment, a lack of funds means that the exchange can’t distribute plastic spoons. These cheap and simple bits of injecting equipment are vital to preventing infection. Unlike HIV, Hepatitis C can survive in the tiniest traces of blood and for relatively long periods of time. Any shared equipment - not just needles and syringes - can be infectious. When asked if it’s possible to reduce infection rates Hayes is clear, “Only if you had all the equipment available 24 hours”.

Funding levels for NSPs have not kept pace with inflation and wage costs, or with the changing needs of the drug scene. Extended hours are rare even in major cities. In the heart of Melbourne’s street drug scene, Foot Patrol operates for less than 12 hours a day and only 7 on weekends.

The government continues to put the blame back onto drug users. Abbott says, “the best way to avoid Hepatitis C is not to use illicit drugs. I would urge people to take the same hard-line view on that kind of lawbreaking as we do on other kinds of lawbreaking.” To Liebke the message is clear, “Drug users are just filthy junkies and we know their health is bad, but we don’t care”.

But with treatment costs for government estimated at $20,000 per infection, it’s simply bad policy for the Health Minister to hope that illicit drug addicts will “just say no”.

With Abbott’s comments in mind it’s not surprising that a major effect of drug policy continues to be the criminalisation, and incarceration, of drug users. It’s estimated that of the hundreds of millions of dollars the States and Commonwealth put into battling illicit drugs, over 80 per cent goes to law enforcement, while roughly 5 per cent goes to treatment and the rest to prevention and research. While the government claims to be targeting dealers and traffickers, reports from enforcement agencies indicate that most people caught up in the criminal justice system would best be defined as “users” rather than “providers”.

Hayes, who sees the effect of policing on Foot Patrol clients, agrees that it’s “users and street dealers” who are targeted. Nationwide it’s estimated that roughly one in two inmates are serving time for drug-related offences. It’s not just for so-called “hard drugs” either. In NSW alone last year 11,214 people were charged with possession or use of cannabis.

Sadly, jails too, contribute to the Hepatitis C problem. Drugs are still readily available inside, while clean injecting equipment is not. Hayes says many of her clients were infected on the inside, where infection rates are estimated at up to 70 per cent.

Stuart Loveday, Executive Officer of the Hepatitis C Council of NSW, describes an unofficial needle “exchange” already operating in prisons: He says, “Needles are sharpened up against walls and shared up to 200 times each”. Successful models for prison programmes exist in Europe and could go a long way to stemming infection rates - especially as most drug offenders serve fairly short sentences and are then back in the community potentially infecting others. NSPs in the prison system are a must. Yet states, territories and the Federal Government refuse to budge on the issue. In doing so, as Loveday argues, “They are putting lives at risk”.

At the Commonwealth level, the law enforcement approach seems entrenched. The National Drug Strategic Framework for 2004-9 doesn’t recognise addressing Hepatitis C as a priority or objective of the strategy.

Madden describes the current government as, “Very uncompassionate. They are hard, they are very mean and they don’t seem to have much regard for people who use drugs as human beings.” This “creates a real sense of vulnerability”. Drug users are “being made to feel that they’re very lucky to get anything they get”. The one hope she has is that the Howard Government’s approach has made some people wake up to what is going on. She has seen “A larger proportion of the community starting to be a bit more vocal on these issues, saying ‘This is not a compassionate approach’”. People are starting to realise, “This is not okay. This is kicking people when they’re down.”

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This is an edited version of an article originally published in SPINACH7 Magazine, No. 4, Winter 2004. It was edited by Eve Vincent.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Esther Singer is a community development worker in the mental health sector.

Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy