Why Qld Needs a Fair Trial of Injecting Facilities
Throughout the nation many people have died from drug overdoses. Drugs such as Heroin and Cocaine are available in school yards and on street corners across Australia, cheaper than ever.
Many believe that a trial of supervised injecting facilities would send the wrong message to young people or would increase the intensity of drug use in the community. Others believe the state should crack down harder on drug users.
It may seem paradoxical that, as a society, we might consider providing equipment and a safe location for people to do something that is illegal. There are many people who use Heroin in the same way that others use beer or wine, a way to relax. It is the users who inject in public places and present society with the dishevelled appearance, bad manners and criminal behaviour. These are the people who most need help or are very likely to make use of supervised injecting facilities.
Supervised injecting facilities will almost certainly save lives, the lives of those who inject on the street, in back alleys, vacant lots, and public parks or in parked cars. More than two-thirds of non-fatal overdoses now occur in public places. What this means is that a very large proportion of injecting drug users have nowhere else to inject.
Unless society demonstrates in a practical way that we do actually care whether people live or die, we cannot hope to establish meaningful contact. Without contact, a very large proportion of those who inject drugs on the street will never find their way into rehabilitation programs, or re-enter education and training, or establish something approximating a happy life.
Medically supervised injecting rooms should be established in south-east Queensland to prevent drug overdoses and limit the spread of diseases. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, based in Kings Cross, was granted permanent status by the NSW government. Since its opening there has also been an 80 per cent reduction in ambulance call-outs to Kings Cross. The Queensland Intravenous AIDS Association president Danielle Coade said the NSW government had made a landmark decision based on “life-saving benefits”. Danielle Coade said “It is time to install similar facilities here in Queensland, most urgently in areas with street-based injecting communities such as Fortitude Valley and Palm Beach”, “As a responsible society we need to accept that, however much some may wish it wasn’t true, some people will choose to inject drugs” (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010). A trial can be done here in QLD; it is just a matter of obtaining the correct evidence to prove the need for it. There are various elements that need to be evaluated before the QLD Government even contemplates allowing a trial to be established.
According to the Parliament Committee Report, on the Establishment of Trial of Safe Injecting Rooms, items such as arguments for and against: social implications, arguments for and against: health implications, the use of injecting rooms in other countries (e.g. overseas experience- the Netherlands), costs and other treatment options need to be evaluated before the trial can be established. Other areas of evaluation can be seen in the Parliament Committee Report. Ms Coade stated that “Our main reason for calling for this is to reduce harm to users, to lower rates of injecting on streets, stopping overdoses, giving access to treatment options and providing a safe place where people can inject with trained staff around” (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010). However, Drug Arm Queensland executive director Dennis Young said they would not support such a scheme in Fortitude Valley or Palm Beach. Dr Young said the Kings Cross scheme was too expensive and doubted there was a sufficient number of injecting users in the Valley or at Palm Beach to justify a similar centre.
Many stakeholders believe that the injecting centre in Kings Cross is unique to that area and that it would not be easily transferable to other areas of Australia. Recently the Gold Coast Drug Council rejected the suggestion as being too expensive and an idea that would never be approved in QLD. GCDC executive director Mary Alcorn said the service would cost millions of dollars to establish and that there were already excellent needle and syringe exchanges at Palm Beach and West Burleigh which already have efficient injection education. There have been other forms of treatment suggested to drug users which do not require as much funding. Ms Coade said that the Sydney MSIC (Medically Supervised Injecting Centre) saved taxpayers $3.3 million that would have been spent on health costs which would be associated with the spread of blood-borne viruses and overdoses. Advocates understand that there would be opposition, but the issue should be debated in the community. A QLD health spokesperson said that the concept was not on the department’s agenda. “This is not something QLD Health is currently considering” the spokesperson said (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010).
It seems Qld is holding back on introducing similar legislation as NSW because of the strict anti drug policy that has previously been put in place. Qld currently does not have any legislation in place that allows the use of supervised injecting rooms. However there are three pieces of legislation in Qld that relate to drug use. These are the Drug Court Act 2000, Drug Misuse Act 1986 and the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000. Qld does not support drug use in any way and if they were to introduce supervised injecting facilities it may be seen as a form of support for drug uses not necessarily for medical purposes. However if Qld was to put aside their anti drug policy and focus on the medical control, then passing the legislation should not be difficult. In Qld there is only one house that legislation needs to bypass. If this bill was to be passed in the future, there would be a noticeable change in the percentage of drug overdoses in Qld.
No one has all the answers about drug use, but it is important for young people to know that the nation they inhabit cares about them enough to keep in touch and offer help- even if it involves a socio-legal paradox. Supervised injecting facilities may help society keep in touch and they're likely to make our streets a little more pleasant and, incidentally save quite a few lives along the way.
Many believe that a trial of supervised injecting facilities would send the wrong message to young people or would increase the intensity of drug use in the community. Others believe the state should crack down harder on drug users.
It may seem paradoxical that, as a society, we might consider providing equipment and a safe location for people to do something that is illegal. There are many people who use Heroin in the same way that others use beer or wine, a way to relax. It is the users who inject in public places and present society with the dishevelled appearance, bad manners and criminal behaviour. These are the people who most need help or are very likely to make use of supervised injecting facilities.
Supervised injecting facilities will almost certainly save lives, the lives of those who inject on the street, in back alleys, vacant lots, and public parks or in parked cars. More than two-thirds of non-fatal overdoses now occur in public places. What this means is that a very large proportion of injecting drug users have nowhere else to inject.
Unless society demonstrates in a practical way that we do actually care whether people live or die, we cannot hope to establish meaningful contact. Without contact, a very large proportion of those who inject drugs on the street will never find their way into rehabilitation programs, or re-enter education and training, or establish something approximating a happy life.
Medically supervised injecting rooms should be established in south-east Queensland to prevent drug overdoses and limit the spread of diseases. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, based in Kings Cross, was granted permanent status by the NSW government. Since its opening there has also been an 80 per cent reduction in ambulance call-outs to Kings Cross. The Queensland Intravenous AIDS Association president Danielle Coade said the NSW government had made a landmark decision based on “life-saving benefits”. Danielle Coade said “It is time to install similar facilities here in Queensland, most urgently in areas with street-based injecting communities such as Fortitude Valley and Palm Beach”, “As a responsible society we need to accept that, however much some may wish it wasn’t true, some people will choose to inject drugs” (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010). A trial can be done here in QLD; it is just a matter of obtaining the correct evidence to prove the need for it. There are various elements that need to be evaluated before the QLD Government even contemplates allowing a trial to be established.
According to the Parliament Committee Report, on the Establishment of Trial of Safe Injecting Rooms, items such as arguments for and against: social implications, arguments for and against: health implications, the use of injecting rooms in other countries (e.g. overseas experience- the Netherlands), costs and other treatment options need to be evaluated before the trial can be established. Other areas of evaluation can be seen in the Parliament Committee Report. Ms Coade stated that “Our main reason for calling for this is to reduce harm to users, to lower rates of injecting on streets, stopping overdoses, giving access to treatment options and providing a safe place where people can inject with trained staff around” (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010). However, Drug Arm Queensland executive director Dennis Young said they would not support such a scheme in Fortitude Valley or Palm Beach. Dr Young said the Kings Cross scheme was too expensive and doubted there was a sufficient number of injecting users in the Valley or at Palm Beach to justify a similar centre.
Many stakeholders believe that the injecting centre in Kings Cross is unique to that area and that it would not be easily transferable to other areas of Australia. Recently the Gold Coast Drug Council rejected the suggestion as being too expensive and an idea that would never be approved in QLD. GCDC executive director Mary Alcorn said the service would cost millions of dollars to establish and that there were already excellent needle and syringe exchanges at Palm Beach and West Burleigh which already have efficient injection education. There have been other forms of treatment suggested to drug users which do not require as much funding. Ms Coade said that the Sydney MSIC (Medically Supervised Injecting Centre) saved taxpayers $3.3 million that would have been spent on health costs which would be associated with the spread of blood-borne viruses and overdoses. Advocates understand that there would be opposition, but the issue should be debated in the community. A QLD health spokesperson said that the concept was not on the department’s agenda. “This is not something QLD Health is currently considering” the spokesperson said (Call for Valley injecting room, 2010).
It seems Qld is holding back on introducing similar legislation as NSW because of the strict anti drug policy that has previously been put in place. Qld currently does not have any legislation in place that allows the use of supervised injecting rooms. However there are three pieces of legislation in Qld that relate to drug use. These are the Drug Court Act 2000, Drug Misuse Act 1986 and the Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000. Qld does not support drug use in any way and if they were to introduce supervised injecting facilities it may be seen as a form of support for drug uses not necessarily for medical purposes. However if Qld was to put aside their anti drug policy and focus on the medical control, then passing the legislation should not be difficult. In Qld there is only one house that legislation needs to bypass. If this bill was to be passed in the future, there would be a noticeable change in the percentage of drug overdoses in Qld.
No one has all the answers about drug use, but it is important for young people to know that the nation they inhabit cares about them enough to keep in touch and offer help- even if it involves a socio-legal paradox. Supervised injecting facilities may help society keep in touch and they're likely to make our streets a little more pleasant and, incidentally save quite a few lives along the way.
