Save Our
State South Australia IncSave Our
State South Australia Inc
Dedicated to the preservation of personal freedoms, moral standards, honest responsible government and principled political behaviour for the people of South Australia
(Below is a Media Monitor transcript of an ABC Radio interview of Dr David Caldicott, who appears to insist that people like Ann Bressington and the late Morrie Thompson lack compassion because they want addicts to be helped to master their addiction (both have been heavily involved in this work) and find the suppliers and lock them up and throw away the key.
I find nothing rational in the Caldicott idea that you allow the use of dangerous drugs and just try to reduce the harm this causes the addict - like suggesting to an addicted cigarette smoker that they should cut down from 30-a-day to 20, and providing a cough syrup. So far as I can tell, the only people to benefit from such a scheme would be the suppliers. Ed)
Dr David Caldicott, RAH (891ABC 8.55-8.59) Drug use - criticism of Ann Bressington MLC
(Abraham: David Caldicott, speaking to us from a rather busy restaurant
in New York - why were you concerned about the comments that Ann
Bressington had to say, particularly that South Australia is becoming
very much like the relaxed Dutch on drugs, as opposed to following what
she regarded as quite a successful Swedish model) .
Unfortunately she seems to be quoting, once again, lock, stock and barrel from the rather outdated pamphlet . purely there's a lot more research around . the reality of the situation is that we should be, as far as possible, distancing ourselves from the Swedish model - the Swedes may have less drugs used, but they have more people dying from drug use than any other European country, particularly in the 25 to 39 year old age group - more people are using the harder drugs, like heroin and cocaine in Sweden than in any other European country; they have the highest rate of Hepatitis C in Europe . the medical profession in Sweden are extremely alarmed .
So to suggest that the model that we should aspire to is nonsense - the things that we have to think about as doctors, medical professionals, is what policy can we introduce that creates the least harm . that's why harm reduction works for Holland - they may have slightly more people using drugs, but far fewer are getting injured or killed from drugs use . people who are interested in intervening and educating, like myself, can talk to them and discourage them from drug use, you can't do that with a dead body .
Unfortunately Ms Bressington's approach, and those who agree with the prohibition model, are prepared to put the lives and welfare of young Australians . they treat it in an ideological and moral way rather than any sort of compassionate way, which is what my group and others around Australia believe in.
(Abraham: But you do admit though that the harm reduction model results in more people, well, one of the realities is, if we're looking at Holland, one of the realities is that more people are going to use drugs, more young people are going to use drugs; the approach is, we have to accept that, but we're going to make sure they don't die as often or overdose as often)
Yep, that's absolutely right . the real reality is that illicit drug use is a public health [unclear] . only reason that the law is involved is because of the health problems associated with it - we've got to [unclear] to stop people getting hurt from it first . then discourage them from using it, rather than trying to intervene while they're in an intensive care unit or with the relatives of a bereaved family .
There's a price to pay . that price may be more people using drugs, but surely that's a better price to pay than more people dying from drug use
(Bevan: Well David, we appreciate your time . we also appreciate that you're monitoring what's being said on this program and around South Australia from New York . perhaps when you get back in Adelaide we can have another chat)
Look, as I said before, our research group is now a group of about 15 around the world . monitoring what right wing politicians are saying about drugs . ensuring that they stick to the science and the truth . it's a measure of how closely we're monitoring this, that we can watch what Ms Bressington and her ilk are saying as far away as New York
(Bevan: Thank you very much . we look forward to speaking to you and Ann Bressington as 2007 unfolds)
I can't wait
(Abraham: Dr David Caldicott . interesting group there, The List - a group of like-minded individuals, such as Dr David Caldicott, and medical professionals who are deciding to take a very active role in monitoring and responding on this debate . not letting anything go unchallenged . speaking to us from New York . normally based here in Adelaide).
TRANSCRIPT OF ALAN JONES? TODAY SHOW EDITORIAL
TUESDAY 27.2.07
The scene in Sydney last week could be played out anywhere in Australia.
Big city, country town, anywhere.
More than 700 people gathered to farewell a 20 year old girl who died after taking a tablet laced with a drug PMA, which most Australians would know nothing about. It's apparently a toxic substance occasionally sold as ecstasy.
This prompted me to speak on air to a young man, Darren Marton who's doing a wonderful job fighting the drug scourge. He calls his campaign the No Way Campaign.
He speaks from experience. He survived the scourge.
He was an outstanding teenage footballer, on scholarship with the Sydney club Cronulla Sharks. Then after an injury, the demons, drugs and alcohol, took over and with them, addiction. Ice and the lot. Six different mental hospital admissions. And of course a criminal record and gaol.
Somehow in 2004 he survived and decided to do something about it. Hence his No Way Campaign, which is really flourishing. People want to hear the story, especially parents, schools and the young ones.
But he thought he'd enrol in a TAFE course to learn more about drugs and alcohol. I have to say I didn't know there were such courses. Well he found himself in this TAFE class before a teacher with three Masters degrees, who he said worked as an analytical psychologist for government.
And here's this bloke telling the class that heroin isn't bad for you, drugs aren't dangerous, when someone's child dies a drug-related death the parents kick and scream and start campaigning against drugs. And all ex-users get up on TV and say how bad drugs are.
Now you'll say this is not believable, except that it is. Because following the death of the 20 year old in Sydney, one newspaper reported that the batch of ecstasy that caused her death might have been a bad batch that had hit the streets.
What is a bad batch of drugs? Is there a good batch? What kind of messages are being sent to young people? In Sydney there's a heroin injection room. There's a needle exchange programme where drug takers are given millions of free needles a year to shoot up.
Yet there's a statute book full of laws passed by the Parliament which say that drugs are illegal. And yet the language of the drug culture is about harm minimisation, whatever that is. Or a bad batch of drugs. Or an academic saying that heroin isn't bad for you and drugs aren't dangerous. How the hell can kids ever work out the direction that they must take while such confused messages are presented to them?
Basically the language of today's society reinforces a culture of acceptance.
Heroin injecting rooms, needle exchange programmes, harm minimisation.
How do you minimise harm from drugs when the drug road is long, tortuous, paralysing, often ending with a giant precipice over which most disappear.
Thank God for the Darren Martons of this world. They give parents some hope.
The prospect of hearing a worthwhile message and the personal experience of turning your life around. But I'll tell you something, he's got a formidable mountain in front of him. Everyone, it seems, from Government down is unprepared to face the reality that Darren Marton seeks to address.
His number for anyone out there who wants to make contact, and it's a very good message, is 0407 675 728. Ring him.
It may be the difference between surviving and surrendering.
Dr. Caldicott along with Sandra Kanck and others belongs to a group called "Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform". Basically this group works to have laws around drugs relaxed, relies on research that supports their efforts and believes that politicians are the wrong people to develop drug policy. Of course there is no mention of the change of doctors who have become involved in politics. It is also worth noting that this group does not ever talk about treatment for addiction or rehabilitation of addicts. They talk about pill testing and handing those illicit drugs back to our youth, and members say that ecstasy is a safe drug, that our youth who have used drugs are having a good time at rave parties and that marijuana can make you more intelligent. Some of the members of this group are politicians like Sandra Kanck and others are doctors but the message is always the same. "get used to living with drugs and accommodate as much as is humanly possible those who choose to use them"
This List that Dr. Caldicott mentions is going to be a blessing to those of us who believe that drugs do immeasurable harm to users, long-term and to our community as a whole because they will eventually unveil the agenda they push. Sandra Kanck outraged many in the public with her claims about ecstasy and marijuana, Dr. Caldicott also admitted that under our current harm minimization policy more people tend to use drugs.
First of all, the "outdated pamphlet" is an article available from the Council of Foreign Affairs by Larry Collins, Investigative reporter and author of a document not a pamphlet called "Holland - a Half Baked Drug Policy". This is the only piece of investigative literature that has been undertaken to show the other side of Holland's drug policy. The Dutch are very closed mouth on the outcomes they are experiencing, but I have been told that there is an intention to wind back on their coffee shops because that particular policy has caused a great deal of harm.
Dr. Caldicott also referred to my approach as a "prohibition" model. I refer to it as a treatment, rehabilitation, prevention and intervention model. Of course I believe that we should be prohibiting drugs to our youth, but not one of my policies around drug use refers to punishment or incarceration.
As for the lack of compassion. I have worked with drug users long enough to know a little compassion goes a long way, especially those who do not want to stop using even though it is creating problems in their lives. I do focus on "problematic drug users" in my policies and do not suggest for one minute that police should be hunting down drug users. I believe we have an obligation to detect youth drug use and intervene and not through expulsion or punishment but through referring teenage drug users and their parents to counseling that will educate both sides on the related harms and also to assist parents to communicate with their child.
I worked with addicts and their families for 6 years without receiving any pay and I have all the compassion in the world for those problematic drug users who want to change but who cannot access suitable support to do so. I also have a great deal of compassion for parents who are trying desperately to cope with the bad behavior of drug users. I have no compassion at all for anyone who wants to continue to use drugs and expect tax payer dollars should fund them to do so.
As for pill testing I have a real problem with medical professionals and associates going to rave parties testing illicit substances and then handing them back. The pill testing may show contaminants, but it cannot show what other drugs a person has on broad, it cannot show what that person's response to the drug will be, it cannot detect pre-existing heart conditions or organ impairment that may result in a bad response to the drugs. My question is, if a pill is tested, is handed back by a medical professional and the person takes the pill and overdoses or has a reaction to the drug and dies who is responsible? I would think that the majority of people would expect the medical professional to assume responsibility because he or she has handed that pill back to the user who may already be mind-altered an incapable of making a decision in his or her best interests and the medical professional would be sober and not under the influence of a drug, or so you would hope.
Dr. Caldicott also made the comment that I am prepared to put the lives of young Australians at risk, even after he admitted himself that one of the realities of harm minimization is that more people use drugs and we have to accept that. Just a little ironic I think, given that I have been involved with treating more people through addiction counseling and have also assisted many people to pick up their lives and not have to use drugs to get through the day. What Dr. Caldicott and others do not seem to recognize is "addiction" and that not every drug user is having a good time. For many the party is over and they want out, but our policies and laws tend to focus on the right of people to use drugs safely. Meanwhile there are desperate people who are waiting anything up to six weeks or longer to access rehabilitation to stop using. Drug users have enough people fighting their battle for them, but the poor drug user who wants out gets caught up on a bad merry go round that has very limited treatment and rehabilitation options.
I suggest that those listeners out there who have access to the internet get onto some of the blogs on websites for drug users and ravers and just see the comments on those sights about their drug use and their rights and the absolute despise for anyone who would suggest that taking these drugs is dangerous, then call my office on 8237 9596 and tell me if Dr. Caldicott and his associates are being successful in convincing these young people to stop using drugs or even if the education around the harms of these drugs is doing the job.
As for a moral stand well I can sit here and say quite clearly that when a young person I don’t know uses drugs it has no effect on me. The problem is that I have so many parents and drug users who are coming to me pleading for assistance that I feel obligated to represent them in a way that will be useful to them. I think that is called having a social conscience and looking out for those who are in trouble. I just wish that Dr. Caldicott could clarify what he means by putting young Australians at risk and as moral approach. I am very concerned in a moral way about our young people those who are using drugs and their families and those who are not using drugs as well. The problem is that a lot of kids are marginalized because they don’t use drugs and that is a whole other issue. I know fo a person who was beaten up at school severely because she would not use drugs and she suffered for a long time from symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Shouldn't we be concerned when the choices of the few effect the well being of others?