THE FALLACY OF ‘HARM MINIMISATION’
No one can pretend that dealing with the problem of the widespread use of illicit drugs in the community is an easy one to solve. But solve it we must.
Drug abuse is literally destroying the lives of many of our young people, and it is making the lives of many others totally miserable and useless. This is a community tragedy. We do not have so many good and useful young members of the community that we can surrender a significant proportion of them to the insidious effects of drugs. Even more important, though, is the personal tragedy, which a dependence on drugs creates among the addicts themselves, but also among their families and friends.
It is the cause of great despair among drug users and their families. It promotes domestic violence. It often leads to child abuse. It is the progenitor of an enormous amount of crime from burglary, robbery and theft to serious and even fatal driving offences. The blight it places on young lives usually means that those lives are ruined forever. To permit this to continue without taking every possible step to stop it is unconscionable. Our Mental Health facilities are now over-burdened with the results of people abusing marijuana.
ACAD (the Australian Cities Against Drugs Movement) strongly believes that the community, through its State and Federal Government, its charitable organisations, especially including the churches, and all other government and non-government agencies should be doing all it can to: -
· discourage people, especially the young, from starting on drugs in the first place
· provide rehabilitation facilities for those who have succumbed, to enable them to give up their habit as effectively as possible, and to provide them with support after rehabilitation to help them to stay free of drugs
· provide support for parents, friends and acquaintances of people who succumb, or are in danger of succumbing to drugs, so they can play a role in helping their family members or friends to beat drugs
· provide strong continuing action against those importing, producing or selling drugs to users, especially young people.
While this is what we believe should be done, the reality is quite different. The NSW Government, in particular, is doing little to discourage young people from taking drugs.
There is an element in the community, which supports what is known as Harm Minimisation. This takes the line that the taking of drugs by young people is inevitable, and so encourages those involved to adopt various practices which will somehow minimise or reduce the harm that drugs will do.
The fallacy of "harm minimisation" Page 2
ACAD contends that this is sending the wrong messages to young people. The message suggests to the young people that there is nothing very wrong with taking drugs, provided you take various precautions to ensure that the drugs do as little harm as possible. ACAD maintains that this is simply surrendering to the drug culture.
Harm minimisation or reduction is the approach, which was taken by the NSW Education Department in its official publication, ‘Drug Scene’. I quote:
‘The aim of harm reduction is to reduce harmful and hazardous drug use, and promote responsible and safer use of drugs.’
We understand this publication has since been withdrawn. The basic fallacy in its approach failed to acknowledge that once a person begins taking drugs, he or she loses the high level of discrimination needed to decide how much or how little drugs to use, whether to always use clean needles, and the other levels of judgement that would be needed to safely take drugs. The people concerned simply become incapable of exercising the control and careful assessment that would be needed to minimise or reduce the harm that drugs will do.
From ACAD’s considerable experience in helping drug users, it is clear that people who feel that they need drugs, and especially those who become addicted, are unable to control themselves or their urges. This is why thousands of young people who have never done anything illegal become out-of-control thieves, burglars and robbers once they fall into the grip of drugs.
ACAD’s experience is that there is no safe way of regularly smoking cannabis, injecting heroin, swallowing ecstasy or snorting cocaine. These drugs are strongly addictive. Few people are able to stop taking them once they take them regularly.
Addiction is an insidious thing. Many thousands of people can smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol socially without becoming absolutely dependent on them, even though the percentage of those who do become addicted to these substances is much higher than many people appreciate or will admit. The percentage who become addicted to cannabis, heroin and other illicit drugs do so at a faster rate in general than those who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol socially.
Both State and Federal Governments have been funding and conducting campaigns against the smoking of tobacco products. That campaign is now reaping significant benefits, because the percentage and numbers of those who smoke is now the lowest level it has been in Australia since records have been kept. It has fallen from about 50 to less than 15 per cent in the past 15 years. By comparison, almost no government funds are being spent on a similar anti-drug campaign, which appears strange when it is freely acknowledged by the relevant authorities that some 80 per cent of crime is drug related.
The fallacy of "harm minimisation" Page 3
While the anti-smoking campaign is obviously justified, the harm done by drugs to individuals, families and the community is much greater. Scientists have proved conclusively, for instance, that the smoking of cannabis is vastly more injurious to health and mental health than the smoking of cigarettes, even though most people now understand the harm to health, which arises from tobacco usage.
ACAD, and many other groups in the community concerned about illicit drug taking, do not want children taught that taking drugs can be safe, no matter what precautions are taken. This is presenting them with a false premise, and tends to make drugs appear acceptable and user friendly. We do not tell children it is safe to drive very fast, even though, with proper training and suitable conditions it can be. The fact is that such driving habits are rarely safe enough for young and inexperienced drivers, so we rightly campaign amongst young people against speeding.
We see a definite philosophical difference between “Harm Minimisation” and “Zero Tolerance.” Much of this relates to what we see as a “user friendly” approach to illicit drugs by the Harm Minimisation hierarchy, and that message carries a great danger to young people.
We believe that children should be taught to “Say NO to Drugs”, and we should demonstrate to them as graphically as possible the consequences they will suffer if they do experiment with them. We have an excellent video, which was shot around the streets of Vancouver, British Columbia, in Canada, which shows the depths to which young people sink when they become addicted to drugs. They show them living lives to which no sensible person would risk descending. They demonstrate that drug taking is not glamorous, and that people who succumb turn their lives over to drug dealers and other criminals.
We are also finding that talks given to school students by people who have been addicts, but who have undergone rehabilitation, are extremely effective in turning the students away from the temptation. They stress that they are the lucky ones: That by their own efforts, or by the intercession of friends or family, they receive rehabilitation. They point out that only a few receive rehabilitation treatment.
Harm Minimisation is also seen by the public as a policy of surrender. Their attitude is that fighting drugs is too hard, so let’s just put our hands up and give in. But fighting crime is very hard to do. Does this mean we give up on that? Fighting cancer is very difficult, and not always successful. Should we give up on that, too? When some educators talk to children about harm minimisation, they tell them that taking drugs is all right, provided they exercise care. This is a highly undesirable message to be giving them.
The fallacy of "harm minimisation" Page 4
Some apologists for the drug culture say that telling children that drugs are dangerous is counter-productive, because they will need to take various drugs prescribed by doctors through their lives. Surely we are not so inept, however, that we cannot teach children to differentiate between drugs necessarily prescribed by a qualified practitioner, and illicit drugs sold in a little plastic bag on a street corner by a drug dealer, or evenly one of their friends.
One consequence of ‘harm minimisation’ is the methadone program. A heroin addict is “treated” by being turned from heroin to methadone. In truth, methadone is as dangerous and as addictive as heroin, but can be legally prescribed. Governments adopted this approach hoping to make it unnecessary for heroin addicts to steal or commit other crimes to fund their addiction. Addicts will tell you, however, that it is harder to “get off” or give up methadone than it is heroin. There are few health benefits of taking methadone rather than heroin and indeed many other side effects.
Former addicts say that many of the tens of thousands of addicts under methadone treatment also continue to take heroin. This is not helping addicts, and is simply seen by us that governments use this as a way to appear to be doing something worthwhile, when in reality it is designed to assuage community outrage at crime which is committed to fund drug users' supply to fund the supply to drug users
The community and the addicts would be much better off if they could be directed into a strong rehabilitation to get them off heroin or methadone altogether, and eventually be able to return to a normal, fulfilling and healthy life.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent by governments on ‘harm minimisation’. It means trials of giving free methadone and even free heroin to addicts; it means trial injecting rooms, and giving addicts free needles. All these initiatives have the effect of keeping addicts on their addiction. It takes money away from rehabilitation, which is the only satisfactory way of treating people with addiction.
Another reason for not continuing the methadone program is that research in the United States has demonstrated that the drug is heightening the effects of HIV. Methadone is a synthetic opiate. According to the research, by immunologists at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which was published in May 2000, use of methadone causes latent HIV infection to enter an active state by activating the promoter HIV LTR.
It is interesting to note in this context that the NSW Government, when it set up the Kings Cross injecting room, claimed that it would give the health workers there to an opportunity to talk to addicts, and to encourage them to undertake rehabilitation. Several times recently, however, the director of the injecting room has admitted that they are not trying to encourage addicts using the room to undertake rehabilitation, as this might deter them
The fallacy of "harm minimisation" Page 5
from using the room. As a result, no effort is being made to suggest rehabilitation to the people concerned.
We in Australia are not alone in seeking to combat the effect of drugs. Various programs are being conducted in other countries. We have been able to study many of them, first hand.
We are part of a worldwide movement. Our sister organisations, European Cities Against Drugs, and American Cities Against Drugs, like us, and many other anti-drug campaigners, are convinced that Sweden has been the most effective in combating drugs.
The Swedes have adopted a “Say No To Drugs” approach, with zero tolerance. They educate children in the most effective manner possible about how their lives will be ruined and their prospects all but wiped out if they succumb to drugs. They cause them to see that drug dealers are simply using young people like them as pawns in their game of building a market by developing addiction among their customers. Rather than being glamorous, they demonstrate to young people that drugs are for losers. And they have adequate rehabilitation centres and follow-up counselling to get those who do give up drugs to find their way back into a meaningful and useful life. Strong and effective law enforcement is important in the Swedish drug policy.
There is strong evidence that this approach has made drug dealers steer away from Sweden, as it is so much easier to sell drugs in countries, which conduct a harm minimisation approach. Switzerland is a good example. The approach there is strongly directed at harm minimisation, with prescribed free heroin for registered addicts, the use of methadone as an alternative, and general support of people to remain addicts rather than to undergo rehabilitation. The result is that the use of illicit drugs there is mushrooming.
Here in Australia, there is constant campaigning by the drug culture for the legalisation of drugs. They say this will do away for the need for drug dealers. Senator Bob Brown leader of the Greens, advocates that the opening of marijuana cafes, where the drug can legally be sold. Dr Alex Wodak presses the authorities to sell marijuana through Australia Post, so it would be available nation-wide (Interview, Sixty Minutes, 8th April 2002).
The Green's political party in March 2003 exposed their harm minimisation policy of the future with suggestions of controlled availability of ecstasy,
speed and also availability of heroin with a string of "safe injecting rooms" across the country. They also want marijuana available and freed-up with people permitted to grow their own.
To think that when it comes to the most sensitive of environments, the environment of the human body, the Greens are quite happy to encourage our young people to pollute it with toxic substances and in fact, will help them do it.
The fallacy of "harm minimisation" Page 6
It is especially relevant to observe, by contrast, that the Australian people are growing more and more convinced that legalisation of drugs is highly undesirable. A survey taken in Victoria late last year shows that for the first time the number of people there against legalisation has risen above 80 per cent.
All our experience in dealing with addicts, our observation of the considerable success of rehabilitation, and the results of an effective education program have led us to firmly believe that the approach we are advocating is the best course for the future of Australia as a nation.
It will be a hard fight. It will cost money. It will require a dedicated effort by
governments. But future generations will never forgive us if we let illicit drug use become a normal way of life. Our nation cannot succeed unless it has sober, well-educated and intelligent people working to solve the nation’s problems, and seizing opportunities.
Drug use must be controlled and reduced to an absolute minimum. We can win this fight. All we need is the will and determination of those who can make it happen.
No person suffering from substance addiction or abuse will be able or available to carry out the work that will always be needed to advance our nation and our civilisation.
Warren W. H. Woodley, OAM
National President
Australian Cities Against Drugs (ACAD) March, 2003
For further information or comments, contact ACAD president Councillor Warren Woodley on 0418 550 441, or on (02) 6760 3383