Because the Ten Commandments and abstinence-only sex education have proven so effective:
HEALTH and education authorities have been accused of promoting illegal drugs – including ecstasy, cannabis and methamphetamines – to high school students.
A controversial teaching resource produced by Sydney West Area Health Service advises students on what to do if they “choose to experiment”.
As always, the media and the Opposition of the day pile on, with help from “concerned parents”:
Parent:
“It’s wrong. It shouldn’t be encouraging the kids to do drugs. I’m shocked that it doesn’t tell them not to be doing drugs,” she said.
“Instead it sends kids a message saying, ‘Here’s how to do it’.”
the best way to keep your head together, is not to use drugs at all.
“Parents have a hard enough task warning children,” he said.
“It defies belief that the Government would be handing out material outlining ’safe’ ways to use illegal drugs.
“There is no such thing as safe drug use – the parents of those young people who have died of illegal drug use would agree.”
Booklet:
- people with a family history of mental illness are at higher risk of developing a mental health problem if they use drugs.
- cannabis may unlock a psychosis …
- young people who begin using drugs regularly at an early age (12-15yrs) are at higher risk of mental health problems.
- mixing drugs puts people at more risk of harm …
…
and remember some people will react badly and become seriously unwell after using only a small amount of a drug, despite these tips.
Editorial:
Talk of “harm minimisation” largely vanishes at that point. When you offer tips on drug use, you’re not in the harm minimisation caper. You’re at the other end of the spectrum.
Aggressive and thorough anti-drug measures are the only proven means of combating illicit drug use, especially among children.
Yeah, lock the bastards up – the editorial appears to suggest we should do that for both the authors of the booklet and the kids who are using drugs.
How many of those people giving their opinions do you actually think have read the booklet?
Harm minimisation is world’s best practice for dealing with drug use as a social health problem and educating people as to how to minimise the risk involved if they actually choose to do it is just bloody humane.
Driving is an incredibly dangerous activity, should we not educate people as to how to stay safe should they choose to drive?
Apparently, the Telegraph showed the booklet to the student they quoted – although I wouldn’t be surprised if the kid belongs to the family who contacted the paper in the first place. I’m sure O’Farrell and Jillian Skinner didn’t need to see it before deciding it was evil – pollies (of both major parties) have the intuitive power to make moral judgments about these things based purely on the description given to them by a staffer or journo.
It seems the whole notion of evidence-based practice gets thrown out the window when something can be characterised as a moral/values issue like sex, drugs, crime, etc. Starting from “This behaviour is wrong and should not happen” can lead to the inference that society must indicate disapproval and do nothing that miplies condoning the behaviour. On the other hand, if we can start from “The consequences of this behaviour are bad and we do not want them to happen” then the implication is that society must implement whatever strategies control, reduce and ideally eliminate the harmful consequences.
Yes, well there’s certainly a penchant for mixing up the behaviour and the negative consequences of the behaviour. Any “moral” political issue ends up with those on the right calling for the criminilisation of the behaviour while others recognise that if it’s going to happen it’s going to happen but we should at least make sure it happens safely while we try to address the causes.
Drugs, underage/premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, substance abuse, etc. You can’t legislate morality, you’ve just got to give people the resources to make an informed decision for themselves and be compassionate enough to give them a hand when they screw up, as we all do (except Jesus, of course).
Criminalisation, that should say.
“Aggressive and thorough anti-drug measures are the only proven means of combating illicit drug use, especially among children.”
What can one say to that?
Aggressive and thorough anti-drug measures have only ever proven one thing … it’s the only known means of combating illicit drug use that doesn’t work. That we know for sure, especially with children.
It never ceases to amaze me that every year the world wastes increasing amounts of money and resources on fighting illicit drugs and many still cry out for even tougher penalties. If they stopped to do five minutes research on the web, they will find that some countries with much stricter drug laws have just as many drug users as countries with more liberal policies.
Do they know that the US is one of the world’s largest illicit drug consumers yet they have one of the world’s toughest drug policies. Even the Asian countries that have the death penalty for drugs, show that no amount of punitive measures deter drug use, one iota.
“Aggressive and thorough anti-drug measures are the only proven means of combating illicit drug use, especially among children.”
This will go down as one of the most ignorant statements ever made. The problem is that it is standard fare for politicians, the MSM, conservatives and much of the public.
Agreed, Terry – there’s no way to combat willful ignorance, and unfortunately it is that type of thinking that dominates the media and political discourse about drugs. Unfortunately this makes it difficult to even figure out exactly what works, because any trial programme that looks soft on drugs is unlikely to receive government support.