Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.
Our Council supports the successful harm elimination policies that are proven overseas to have reduced substance use. For those that are most likely to be attracted to the inhalation of volatile substances this policy will have similar success.
The committee should focus on three aspects of the use of volatile substances being-
1. Prevention of use
2. Suppression of supply
3. Rehabilitation of users
The principles that should be adopted in tackling this problem are –
1. The harm to vulnerable people must be eliminated.
2. The use of the harmful substances must not be tolerated.
3. The community supports vulnerable users being protected from harm.
4. The State has a duty to protect vulnerable citizens.
5. The State must promote the common good.
6. Substance use should lead to rehabilitation to a drug free lifestyle, so as to prevent progression to other harmful substances e.g. illicit drug use.
7. Information should be truthful in its effects about the use of substances.
8. Precaution should be adopted.
When the committee’s discussion paper was released, the disclosure of harm minimization practices set off an intense community debate about the many weaknesses of harm minimization.
These weaknesses indicated that agencies funded by public monies had maintained vulnerable young people in harmful practices.
Accordingly, the community expects community organizations charged with the care of vulnerable young people to provide care that eliminates harm.
Our Council supports the community in their demand that agencies eliminate harm from the use of volatile substances whilst vulnerable young people are in their care.
Organizations that refuse to eliminate harm to young people whilst in care should not receive government funding. All agencies receiving government funding should give a legally binding undertaking that they will not maintain harmful practices for young people in care. The State should support legal claims for damages for compensation made by young people against agencies that have contributed to damage to them because of maintenance of volatile substance use.
The committee should ensure that vulnerable young people harmed by maintaining volatile substance use whilst in care, are not legislatively inhibited from taking legal action for damage.
The discussion paper has an implication that it is only abuse of volatile substances that should be of concern to the community.
Our Council believes that any “use” of volatile substances should be of concern.
We were particularly concerned about policies based on “abuse” or “chronic abuse” used in many references in the discussion paper. Because of your committee’s obligations under law, your committee must define any “use” of volatile substances as of concern.
Accordingly, your committees report to the Parliament must be clear, and based on “use” of substances.
The community expects young people to be protected from harmful practices. This is why restrictions on access to alcohol and nicotine are widely accepted by the community.
With the use of volatile substances, access should be denied to all those under the age of 18 years of age. This is to eliminate the access to the harm of the use of volatile substances. Accordingly, the committee should recommend that access to volatile substances be restricted to those over 18 years of age. As a consequence, the legislative and administrative access to these substances should be as comprehensive as to those of alcohol and nicotine.
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances…(article 32).
Committee members should note the use of the word “use” in the article.
…child means every human being below the age of 18 years….(article 1).
Accordingly, as indicated above, access to volatile substances should be prohibited to those below the age of 18 years. The discussion paper clearly indicates that use of volatile substances always commences before the age of 18 years. Therefore this is the most appropriate time to eliminate the harm.
In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, court of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration (article 3.1).
The committee as a part of the Victorian Parliament must accept the best interests of the child as the dominant principle of its recommendations. This principle of best interests of the child, must be clearly stated in all its recommendations to Parliament.
States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures (article 3.2)
Our Council’s comments are similar to article 3.1 above.
States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff as well as competent supervision (article 3.3).
The discussion paper has numerous examples of where service providers have not met this obligation particularly with regard to the safety and health of children in their care. The practice of normalizing and maintaining the use of volatile substances, which endangers the health of vulnerable young people, should cease. The committee must ensure standards are established and are part of the legal requirements of all service providers. Breach of any standards that maintain harm to young people must result in the withdrawal of government funding for those services in accordance with this article.
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse whilst in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who has the care of the child (article 19.1).
Our Council’s comments are similar to article 3.3 above.
5. The State Must Promote The Common Good
The Victorian Parliament must promote the common good of its people. The discussion paper of the committee clearly indicates that the use of volatile substances is harmful to humans. The Parliament in its wisdom has extensively legislated for restrictions on access, labeling, use, storage and transport of volatile substances in the community as part of its industrial laws. The purpose of these laws is to protect workers, the community and emergency personnel that may be exposed to these substances. The principle that has been applied is to eliminate the harm from use or exposure to these substances. Accordingly, the committee must ensure the common good of the people is explicit in all of its recommendations to the Parliament.
6.Rehabilitation to A Drug Free Future Is Essential
We recommend that all people that are using volatile substances be placed in a long-term residential rehabilitation program to get them to a drug free state. The rehabilitation should be part of the legal requirements of supervision by the state and must be available to substance users that are in the community.
The discussion paper clearly indicates that volatile substance use is an indicator of progression to others drug use in the future. This rehabilitation is an ideal occasion to eliminate a source of future users of other drugs. It is in fact an early intervention program.
The state will benefit by having a lower proportion of future drug users and their resulting costs to the health and welfare system of the future.
Diversion into drug rehabilitation at an early stage will be a cost benefit for the state and will produce a large number of citizens contributing to the progress of the common good.
In order to deter young people from trying volatile substances the committee should recommend the institution of a “say no to drugs” campaign based on accurate information on the known harm of using volatile substances or other drugs.
This approach has proven successful in Sweden and has reduced their drug usage rates so that they are five times lower than drug usage rates in Australia.
Sweden has a political bipartisan policy based on the principle that they want a drug free society and that drugs are an unacceptable form of behavior and it is always marginal.
Sweden uses the known effects of substances to educate potential users against trying a substance.
The discussion paper has much information on the effects of the various volatile substances being used. The committee should use this information based on the precautionary principle to put forward a “say no to drugs” campaign in its recommendations. At least 44 deaths are known to have occurred from using volatile substances this is basic information to educate future potential users.
The discussion paper provides a large amount of evidence of the harm from volatile substance use. Debate within the paper highlights the wide points of view on the medical, psychological, antisocial and criminal effects of the use of volatile substances.
Our Council believes that your Committee should cut through this debate and should adopt the precautionary principle, which is –
“When in doubt adopt a policy that eliminates harm”.
This principle can be restated as “first do no harm”.
This has been applied throughout history as the principle that will restrict the damage of any activity to individuals or the wider community.
Conclusion
Our Council believes your committee should abandon the harm minimization approach outlined in your discussion paper.
You committee should adopt the harm elimination approach that is successfully working overseas in reducing harmful activities.
As those that inhale volatile substances are under the age of 18 when they commence their harmful activities, your committee must rehabilitate these young people before they start using other substances.
Our Council believes your committee should support an extensive “say no to drugs” campaign that will deter vulnerable young people from ever trying substances that are harmful to them.