Needle and Syringes - AMC

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

See my previous post. Pollies routinely check the papers for a sense of what the community is saying, even given that it is biased, depending on what paper or TV/radio show applies. Checking such information does not infringe on anyone’s rights – I have never divulged any person’s name, merely the demographic. However, some things stick in the memory. The demographic of the retired/age status of a group of people in the community voicing opinions is a reasonable way of gauging whether community sentiment is reflected by that demographic, particularly if compared to other demographics.

Nice dodge there John. Just because YOU didn’t divulge the information you obtained doesn’t make it OK that you used it yourself. What public good could you possibly claim that justifies you checking out who they are?

In a previous thread you accused posters of hiding behind their usernames, and cast aspersions on the parenting of a poster who had disagreed with you. I for one am glad that I don’t use my real name on here. I certainly don’t want someone like you knowing all my details.

jcitizen said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

Firstly: How old are you John?????
Secondly: Data… How is it that the same “data” can be studied by opposing Politicians, only for them to draw opposite conclusions after running it through their own, self serving, manipulation machines?
Thirdly: Why not do health checks and drug tests for inmates entering the system, then keep the drug addicts and HIV,Hep3 or diseased blood inmates to one section and put the drug free and disease free to another? Then, One By One, clean up the addicts and once clean remove them to the cleaner side to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
You could also at least try to clean up the Corrections Officers by doing background checks as well as employ sniffer dogs and if found to be dirty then put them in with their mates, that you have caught them” BREAKING THE LAW ” for and with.
If you did not give up and say” oh well its just inevitable, drugs and prison, they go together, lets give them needles and we may as well supply them with drugs too. We could charge them money for the drugs like a “hex debt” and when they get outside they could work it off to pay for their stay or they could work for the government, you know, at least they would be the ones with an informed opinion.”
Surely the best way is to get the poison out of the system. Whether that be drugs or has-been politicians.

Corrections Officers = Trade Unions = Labor.
“you don’t touch me I part of the union” (so the song goes).
Johno was probably a union man before politics – most of the other Labor MLA’s have had the same career path.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Bring it on… I can but tell it how it is. I always have and I always will. But I don’t lie! It may have undone me at times, but my integrity is intact. Those who would diminish me, lie awake at night hating me. Poor souls! Are you sleeping well?

Lying by omission is regarded as lying, John. Noted that you have not in fact denied that you have been using your “snoop lists” long after you ceased to be an MLA. We’re sleeping fine! You’re the one who has a case to answer here!

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

Firstly: How old are you John?????
Secondly: Data… How is it that the same “data” can be studied by opposing Politicians, only for them to draw opposite conclusions after running it through their own, self serving, manipulation machines?
Thirdly: Why not do health checks and drug tests for inmates entering the system, then keep the drug addicts and HIV,Hep3 or diseased blood inmates to one section and put the drug free and disease free to another? Then, One By One, clean up the addicts and once clean remove them to the cleaner side to serve out the remainder of their sentence.
You could also at least try to clean up the Corrections Officers by doing background checks as well as employ sniffer dogs and if found to be dirty then put them in with their mates, that you have caught them” BREAKING THE LAW ” for and with.
If you did not give up and say” oh well its just inevitable, drugs and prison, they go together, lets give them needles and we may as well supply them with drugs too. We could charge them money for the drugs like a “hex debt” and when they get outside they could work it off to pay for their stay or they could work for the government, you know, at least they would be the ones with an informed opinion.”
Surely the best way is to get the poison out of the system. Whether that be drugs or has-been politicians.

Someone said, wouldn’t I like the ACT Government to be implementing the policy I adhere to… The answer is yes and they could be dong better but they are doing something that the Opposition did
not when I started the conversation in 1999.

The then Opposition wanted to continue to send people to NSW, read Goulburn! Just like in1788!

Punishment Is revenge! And repetition…Restoration is closure and forgiveness! Go on… criticise that!

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

I concede I was careless in my expression Johno. H Ronald is not of course a Labor supporter.
Your further comment about checking the demographics of CT letter writers is a bit disturbing.
There is only one place you could have obtained the sort of information you have revealed and that is from the electoral roll supplied exclusively to a registered political party under paragraph 91 (4A) (a) or (b) of The Electoral Act. This roll contains such information as gender, date of birth, salutations and occupations of electors as well as addresses. It is not provided for the sort of research that you have cited and you may have breached the privacy of those you checked the names of.
It is more disturbing that you admit to continuing this practice (“I don’t see much change lately”). This indicates you have ongoing access to the information on the aforementioned roll.
I hope for your sake no one from the Privacy Commissioner’s Office reads this thread.

See my previous post. Pollies routinely check the papers for a sense of what the community is saying, even given that it is biased, depending on what paper or TV/radio show applies. Checking such information does not infringe on anyone’s rights – I have never divulged any person’s name, merely the demographic. However, some things stick in the memory. The demographic of the retired/age status of a group of people in the community voicing opinions is a reasonable way of gauging whether community sentiment is reflected by that demographic, particularly if compared to other demographics.

You have amazing perceptive skills Johno. How many people can look at a name/suburb/town under a letter to the editor contribution and immediately establish the age and occupation of that person?
Some people might believe your story but most wouldn’t.
Let’s see how many readers to this thread support your spin.

Bring it on… I can but tell it how it is. I always have and I always will. But I don’t lie! It may have undone me at times, but my integrity is intact. Those who would diminish me, lie awake at night hating me. Poor souls! Are you sleeping well?

Mr Hargreaves, as a former Corrections Minister do you think it’s time that government got around to implementing this policy?

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

I concede I was careless in my expression Johno. H Ronald is not of course a Labor supporter.
Your further comment about checking the demographics of CT letter writers is a bit disturbing.
There is only one place you could have obtained the sort of information you have revealed and that is from the electoral roll supplied exclusively to a registered political party under paragraph 91 (4A) (a) or (b) of The Electoral Act. This roll contains such information as gender, date of birth, salutations and occupations of electors as well as addresses. It is not provided for the sort of research that you have cited and you may have breached the privacy of those you checked the names of.
It is more disturbing that you admit to continuing this practice (“I don’t see much change lately”). This indicates you have ongoing access to the information on the aforementioned roll.
I hope for your sake no one from the Privacy Commissioner’s Office reads this thread.

See my previous post. Pollies routinely check the papers for a sense of what the community is saying, even given that it is biased, depending on what paper or TV/radio show applies. Checking such information does not infringe on anyone’s rights – I have never divulged any person’s name, merely the demographic. However, some things stick in the memory. The demographic of the retired/age status of a group of people in the community voicing opinions is a reasonable way of gauging whether community sentiment is reflected by that demographic, particularly if compared to other demographics.

You have amazing perceptive skills Johno. How many people can look at a name/suburb/town under a letter to the editor contribution and immediately establish the age and occupation of that person?
Some people might believe your story but most wouldn’t.
Let’s see how many readers to this thread support your spin.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

See my previous post. Pollies routinely check the papers for a sense of what the community is saying, even given that it is biased, depending on what paper or TV/radio show applies. Checking such information does not infringe on anyone’s rights – I have never divulged any person’s name, merely the demographic. However, some things stick in the memory. The demographic of the retired/age status of a group of people in the community voicing opinions is a reasonable way of gauging whether community sentiment is reflected by that demographic, particularly if compared to other demographics.

John, you no longer have “pollie” rights to breach privacy. when you say “check the demographics” – how do you do that based just on a name in the paper? Clearly you are still accessing ALP “special snooping to political ends” databases. You have no right.

dungfungus said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

I concede I was careless in my expression Johno. H Ronald is not of course a Labor supporter.
Your further comment about checking the demographics of CT letter writers is a bit disturbing.
There is only one place you could have obtained the sort of information you have revealed and that is from the electoral roll supplied exclusively to a registered political party under paragraph 91 (4A) (a) or (b) of The Electoral Act. This roll contains such information as gender, date of birth, salutations and occupations of electors as well as addresses. It is not provided for the sort of research that you have cited and you may have breached the privacy of those you checked the names of.
It is more disturbing that you admit to continuing this practice (“I don’t see much change lately”). This indicates you have ongoing access to the information on the aforementioned roll.
I hope for your sake no one from the Privacy Commissioner’s Office reads this thread.

See my previous post. Pollies routinely check the papers for a sense of what the community is saying, even given that it is biased, depending on what paper or TV/radio show applies. Checking such information does not infringe on anyone’s rights – I have never divulged any person’s name, merely the demographic. However, some things stick in the memory. The demographic of the retired/age status of a group of people in the community voicing opinions is a reasonable way of gauging whether community sentiment is reflected by that demographic, particularly if compared to other demographics.

Masquara said :

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

John Hargreaves, to conduct your “check” you must have used information you had gathered through politicians’ exemption from privacy legislation. How is that acceptable? And what have you done with all the “profiling” information you acquired as a politician? Do you still have it? Now that you have left the LA, how about opening up to the Riotact about just how far you went – and other politicians go – in abusing this little loophole?

Happy to let you know what info I took with me when I left. Apart from my election papers over the years and some libellous letters I got, I took nothing with me other than my copies of Hansard and personal effects.

Every elected representative in the land has access to the Electoral Roll and information contained on it, including the addresses of constituents. it also allowed me to see what age a constituent was to allow me to place the constituents into demographic groups. it was silly to think that I would send new information on child care to a person living in a nursing home, wouldn’t it.

But to answer you insinuation, I don’t have any more access to other people’s information than you do. I hope.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

I concede I was careless in my expression Johno. H Ronald is not of course a Labor supporter.
Your further comment about checking the demographics of CT letter writers is a bit disturbing.
There is only one place you could have obtained the sort of information you have revealed and that is from the electoral roll supplied exclusively to a registered political party under paragraph 91 (4A) (a) or (b) of The Electoral Act. This roll contains such information as gender, date of birth, salutations and occupations of electors as well as addresses. It is not provided for the sort of research that you have cited and you may have breached the privacy of those you checked the names of.
It is more disturbing that you admit to continuing this practice (“I don’t see much change lately”). This indicates you have ongoing access to the information on the aforementioned roll.
I hope for your sake no one from the Privacy Commissioner’s Office reads this thread.

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

John Hargreaves, to conduct your “check” you must have used information you had gathered through politicians’ exemption from privacy legislation. How is that acceptable? And what have you done with all the “profiling” information you acquired as a politician? Do you still have it? Now that you have left the LA, how about opening up to the Riotact about just how far you went – and other politicians go – in abusing this little loophole?

Quote=OP
“I want to restart the conversation and space prevents me from going into too much detail but happy to join in a chat on the matter.”

Since you offered to chat in your original post Mr Hargreaves, I’m surprised you haven’t bothered responding to any subsequent contributions on topic.

What is it you’re hoping to chat about? I’m happy to chat with you.

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

Not quite right. H Ronald doesn’t qualify as a Labor letter writer. When I was in the Assembly, I did a check on the demographics of the Letter writers to the CT. in 2008, 85% of those writers were retired, male and over 70 years old. I don’t see much change lately….

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?

When they’re written by experts.

An expert being defined as “a person with more data than judgment”.

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?

When they’re written by experts.

Mysteryman said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

Spot on!
And since when did any opinion in the CT Letters to the Editor carry any weight?
All there is these days is an organised hate campaign from Labor supporters still in denial about the last Federal election result.

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside.

The pasting Clive Williams received was published in the CT letters to the editor. The authors included recognised experts in blood borne virus prevention – something Mr Williams clearly is not.

Would you be by any chance the same James Ryan referred to in this report?:
http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2003/comms/health12.pdf

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside..

It worked for Richard Dawkins. I don’t see why it’s a problem here.

dungfungus said :

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

“An academic, no less” writing opinions well outside his area of expertise does open himself up somewhat when he ignores the evidence and leads with his backside.

The pasting Clive Williams received was published in the CT letters to the editor. The authors included recognised experts in blood borne virus prevention – something Mr Williams clearly is not.

There’s no need for a needle program if there’s no drugs. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying well it’s just too hard to keep drugs out of our prisons, is pathetic. You are responsible for their welfare and that means stopping the drugs from getting to the in the first place!

James_Ryan said :

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Perhaps you can provide some links to the “lambasting”.
It’s hard to please a lot of people on this blog. When they plead for informed comment and it is offered then someone else says it is ill-informed.
It would appear from your comments on this thread that you are some sort of a crusader for clean needles so I can understand your criticism of anyone else’s opinion that opposes yours.

What you’ve basically said is “they get diseases because they use drugs. We should help them use drugs better”. What I’m suggesting is ideally we should be getting them off drugs. Yep, it’s probably more expensive my way. But I think it’s a far more desirable outcome than releasing prisoners back into the population with ongoing drug habits. That’s not good for them, or us. Especially when they continue committing crimes because of, or in support of, their habit.

And guards/prison staff should be held accountable as routine practice, and punished to the full extent of the law if they are found to be supplying drugs, regardless of the assertion that “drugs will always be in prisons”. Personally, I find the attitude of “it’s too hard, let’s just help them do it” to be a complete cop out.

No, I’m saying that they’re likely to use drugs anyway, so harm minimisation makes sense in a whole society context.

Want evidence? Try this for a start – covers the issues nicely: http://static.squarespace.com/static/50ff0804e4b007d5a9abe0a5/t/51dca252e4b02bbec325e7cf/1373413970161/Prisons%20Consensus%20Statement%20July%202011.pdf

I totally agree that getting people off drugs would be preferable. Highly preferable. But getting people off drugs is not an easy task and requires significant investment and intense pre-and post-care (there’s a wealth of evidence for this; start with with http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition and dive on into more serious literature if you want). IMO, putting this effort in is unlikely to be politically palatable in the context of prisoners. If this is the case, evidence-based harm minimisation programs should be instituted as a second choice IMO. Needle exchange is one such.

I also agree that no drugs in prisons would be ideal. However, again, doesn’t seem to be realistic in the Australian prison system. Sure, do more to try to stop it, but in the meantime, how about some harm reduction?

firstly they are not “Guests” they are prisoners in jail. simply stop being a no backbone wimp get off the needle and you won’t go to prison from feeding your habit.

how does supplying needles to prisoners give a reason not to re offend and not to return ? As when they are released they still have to commit crime because they have a injecting drug habit to feed which the government have supported.

Mysteryman said :

You managed 5 paragraphs and not a single piece of evidence.

Spanish authorities have recently evaluated that nation’s 10-year-old prison needle exchange program and found the prevalence of HIV infection fell from 21 per cent in 1999 to 8.5 per cent in 2009, while hepatitis C infection fell from 40 per cent to 26.1 per cent.

See more at: http://www.adf.org.au/policy-advocacy/policytalk-june-2012#sthash.kKP9XbHe.dpuf

dungfungus said :

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

Mr Williams was rightfully lambasted for the ill-informed opinion you have linked, and hasn’t ventured near the issue since.

Mysteryman said :

You managed 5 paragraphs and not a single piece of evidence.

Evidence from ALL needle exchange programs in Spain, Switzerland and Germany have all reported increased safety for prison staff. It is not hard to find the evidence yourself using Professor Google. As a starting point, I would suggest “Needle and syringe programs: A review of the evidence” published by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing in 2005. I would link to it for you, but am not that good with technology.

Mysteryman said :

What you’ve basically said is “they get diseases because they use drugs. We should help them use drugs better”. What I’m suggesting is ideally we should be getting them off drugs. Yep, it’s probably more expensive my way. But I think it’s a far more desirable outcome than releasing prisoners back into the population with ongoing drug habits. That’s not good for them, or us. Especially when they continue committing crimes because of, or in support of, their habit.

No. It looks like you have completely missed what was said. Advocates are saying a needle exchange program will help reduce the spread of HIV and Hep C and improve safety for AMC staff, which is supported by evidence from trials in other countries. You are focussed on the separate, but related issue of drug supply/addiction in AMC. Your argument is based on so many erroneous underlying assumptions that I do not know where to start.

Minz said :

Do you guys know how common Hepatitis C is among IV drug users who are imprisoned? It’s something like 40%. So if you put those people in an environment where a) they get no support to kick the habit, b) they’re not treated (prisoner treatment rates for hepatitis C are generally ridiculously low) and c) the drug is available but not clean needles, what do you think is going to happen? Pretty straight-forward.

Needle exchanges doesn’t help the users become drug-free, but it does help them avoid catching chronic disease as part of their jail sentence. Further, exchange is much more easily implemented than the ideal, a proper drug addition treatment program, which isn’t going to happen any time soon (and would be much more expensive).

Anyway, drug availability in prison isn’t desirable, but it is reality. It’s also something that seems to be about ubiquitous worldwide, so if you have any revolutionary ideas for preventing it that don’t come down to “guards should do better work”, well, I’m sure the world’s authorities would love to hear them. On the other hand, if you don’t, how about looking at reality-based solutions like the one this article advocates? As Mr Hargreaves says, disease isn’t a part of the deal with imprisonment – it’s meant to be denial of liberty, not denial of health.

And if you’re not interested in the humanity side of it, what about the economics? Hepatitis C can cause major illness and death, which we, as taxpayers, need to pay for regardless of where the person is. Needles are a pretty cheap alternative to paying for a liver transplant down the track, or for extensive medical treatment.

Oh, and finally – HIV rates in the jailed population are much higher than in the general population. Everything I’ve written above also goes for HIV. Preventative health is a LOT better, and cheaper, than reactive treatment.

Minz said :

Do you guys know how common Hepatitis C is among IV drug users who are imprisoned? It’s something like 40%. So if you put those people in an environment where a) they get no support to kick the habit, b) they’re not treated (prisoner treatment rates for hepatitis C are generally ridiculously low) and c) the drug is available but not clean needles, what do you think is going to happen? Pretty straight-forward.

Needle exchanges doesn’t help the users become drug-free, but it does help them avoid catching chronic disease as part of their jail sentence. Further, exchange is much more easily implemented than the ideal, a proper drug addition treatment program, which isn’t going to happen any time soon (and would be much more expensive).

Anyway, drug availability in prison isn’t desirable, but it is reality. It’s also something that seems to be about ubiquitous worldwide, so if you have any revolutionary ideas for preventing it that don’t come down to “guards should do better work”, well, I’m sure the world’s authorities would love to hear them. On the other hand, if you don’t, how about looking at reality-based solutions like the one this article advocates? As Mr Hargreaves says, disease isn’t a part of the deal with imprisonment – it’s meant to be denial of liberty, not denial of health.

And if you’re not interested in the humanity side of it, what about the economics? Hepatitis C can cause major illness and death, which we, as taxpayers, need to pay for regardless of where the person is. Needles are a pretty cheap alternative to paying for a liver transplant down the track, or for extensive medical treatment.

Oh, and finally – HIV rates in the jailed population are much higher than in the general population. Everything I’ve written above also goes for HIV. Preventative health is a LOT better, and cheaper, than reactive treatment.

The message I am getting is don’t do crime and don’t take drugs.
How hard is that?

Not to mention the fact that it would be in the interests of the prison guards, the poor sods at the coal face who are spat upon, bitten, bled on, and generally have to contend with all the fluids of the human body, to see minimisation in the spread of communicable diseases at their work place

In fact, I would’ve thought this would partly be an OS H issue. If a guard contracts Hep or HIV from a inmate who wasn’t infected when they arrived, where does the responsibility lie and what’s the liability?

Minz said :

Do you guys know how common Hepatitis C is among IV drug users who are imprisoned? It’s something like 40%. So if you put those people in an environment where a) they get no support to kick the habit, b) they’re not treated (prisoner treatment rates for hepatitis C are generally ridiculously low) and c) the drug is available but not clean needles, what do you think is going to happen? Pretty straight-forward.

Needle exchanges doesn’t help the users become drug-free, but it does help them avoid catching chronic disease as part of their jail sentence. Further, exchange is much more easily implemented than the ideal, a proper drug addition treatment program, which isn’t going to happen any time soon (and would be much more expensive).

Anyway, drug availability in prison isn’t desirable, but it is reality. It’s also something that seems to be about ubiquitous worldwide, so if you have any revolutionary ideas for preventing it that don’t come down to “guards should do better work”, well, I’m sure the world’s authorities would love to hear them. On the other hand, if you don’t, how about looking at reality-based solutions like the one this article advocates? As Mr Hargreaves says, disease isn’t a part of the deal with imprisonment – it’s meant to be denial of liberty, not denial of health.

And if you’re not interested in the humanity side of it, what about the economics? Hepatitis C can cause major illness and death, which we, as taxpayers, need to pay for regardless of where the person is. Needles are a pretty cheap alternative to paying for a liver transplant down the track, or for extensive medical treatment.

Oh, and finally – HIV rates in the jailed population are much higher than in the general population. Everything I’ve written above also goes for HIV. Preventative health is a LOT better, and cheaper, than reactive treatment.

You managed 5 paragraphs and not a single piece of evidence. What you’ve basically said is “they get diseases because they use drugs. We should help them use drugs better”. What I’m suggesting is ideally we should be getting them off drugs. Yep, it’s probably more expensive my way. But I think it’s a far more desirable outcome than releasing prisoners back into the population with ongoing drug habits. That’s not good for them, or us. Especially when they continue committing crimes because of, or in support of, their habit.

And guards/prison staff should be held accountable as routine practice, and punished to the full extent of the law if they are found to be supplying drugs, regardless of the assertion that “drugs will always be in prisons”. Personally, I find the attitude of “it’s too hard, let’s just help them do it” to be a complete cop out.

Mysteryman said :

Have you got any evidence of this? I hear this argument regularly from those who think needle exchanges are a good idea, but I’m yet to see any real evidence that supplying needles ultimately results in more inmates being drug-free in the long run.

the op isn’t arguing that needle exchange programs make the addicts drug-free – only that they limit the potential harm (from blood-borne diseases) while other mechanisms are employed in the cause of reducing drug use. this is a too-common erroneous conflation in opponents to these initiatives. do keep up…

When I was Shadow Minister for Corrections and then Minister, I came to believe that the public wanted to send offenders to prison for punishment and not as punishment. It was generally accepted that there would be extra punishments dished out. I didn’t think that way then and I don’t now.

And therein lies the problem. Politicians are elected to represent the public.

Most seem to forget that.

Do you guys know how common Hepatitis C is among IV drug users who are imprisoned? It’s something like 40%. So if you put those people in an environment where a) they get no support to kick the habit, b) they’re not treated (prisoner treatment rates for hepatitis C are generally ridiculously low) and c) the drug is available but not clean needles, what do you think is going to happen? Pretty straight-forward.

Needle exchanges doesn’t help the users become drug-free, but it does help them avoid catching chronic disease as part of their jail sentence. Further, exchange is much more easily implemented than the ideal, a proper drug addition treatment program, which isn’t going to happen any time soon (and would be much more expensive).

Anyway, drug availability in prison isn’t desirable, but it is reality. It’s also something that seems to be about ubiquitous worldwide, so if you have any revolutionary ideas for preventing it that don’t come down to “guards should do better work”, well, I’m sure the world’s authorities would love to hear them. On the other hand, if you don’t, how about looking at reality-based solutions like the one this article advocates? As Mr Hargreaves says, disease isn’t a part of the deal with imprisonment – it’s meant to be denial of liberty, not denial of health.

And if you’re not interested in the humanity side of it, what about the economics? Hepatitis C can cause major illness and death, which we, as taxpayers, need to pay for regardless of where the person is. Needles are a pretty cheap alternative to paying for a liver transplant down the track, or for extensive medical treatment.

Oh, and finally – HIV rates in the jailed population are much higher than in the general population. Everything I’ve written above also goes for HIV. Preventative health is a LOT better, and cheaper, than reactive treatment.

The permanent presence of drug sniffer dogs at AMC (for visitors and staff) might go a long way to solving the problem of drugs getting in.

The point came out that drugs will always be available in prisons no matter what we do.

It is entirely possible to stop illegal drugs getting into prisons. The problem is that the measures authorities would have to introduce to stop this from occurring would be expensive and draconian so it’ll never happen.

Given those circumstances it’s far easier to introduce a needle and syringe program and it’ll please the human rights advocates.

For those of you who demand “informed comment” (by an academic, no less) about how prisoners can become drug free read this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/how-to-make-jail-drugfree-20120828-24yim.html

“The point came out that drugs will always be available in prisons no matter what we do. We are limited to trying to keep them out but addicts are desperate and cunning people. We need to try to get them off their habits and keep them safe while doing it. That’s why a needle and syringe program is badly needed in the AMC.
This program, delivered in the health centre and not by custodial officers, keeps the people safe from blood borne disease such as Hep C, HIV etc. It does not encourage people to take drugs merely keeps them safe and alive while we work with them to get them clean and keep them that way”

Have you got any evidence of this? I hear this argument regularly from those who think needle exchanges are a good idea, but I’m yet to see any real evidence that supplying needles ultimately results in more inmates being drug-free in the long run. My suspicions are that it makes no difference to the number of users, or the likelihood of being “clean” when released, but I’d be happy to be corrected if the evidence suggested otherwise.

I think the prison system could do with a complete overhaul regarding hiring of officers and ongoing training/checks/auditing of their behaviour. This idea that “drugs will always get it” seems a bit of a cop out. If it’s coming in via guards/officers, then action needs to be taken to make them accountable and punish them. There are many things in this world that will always be, but that doesn’t mean we give up and stop working towards their minimisation.

If you believe that “deprivation of liberty” is the punishment then apply that to you further statement that while the general public have access to a needle & syringe programme but prisoners are denied the same access.
I would have thought that “denying access” was the same as “deprivation of liberty”.
If the supply of drugs to prisoners was stopped then there wouldn’t be any need for needles.
I reckon Scott Morrison could sort this problem out.