28 July 2011

Needles in the prison up for public comment

| johnboy
Join the conversation
137
photo by Crash Test Addict CC BY

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has announced the release of Michael Moore’s report: Balancing Access
and Safety: Meeting the challenge of blood borne viruses in prison
.

The report recommends:

    1. The ACT Corrections Management Act 2007 be amended to require the establishment of an NSP at the AMC.

    2. A clear set of rules, procedures and protocols be established through an appropriate process guided by the ACT Corrections Management Act.

    3. Adopt a contingency process for the implementation of appropriate model/s for a needle and syringe program at the AMC.

    4. Recruitment of a dedicated Aboriginal Health Worker position in an NSP and related service provision would be worthy of consideration.

    5. The installation of secure syringe disposal bins would further reduce the potential for accidental needle-stick injury and be worthy of consideration even without the implementation of an NSP.

    6. Future developments in retractable syringe technology will need to be considered as part of the ongoing development of an NSP in custodial settings.

    7. Legislative amendments be considered to protect all staff from potential civil and criminal liability.

“The Government engaged Michael Moore to investigate and report on models for the implementation of an NSP at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) and the project included an assessment of the barriers to implementation with a broad range of consultations held with key stakeholders,” Ms Gallagher said.

The report has made seven (7) recommendations and the Government will now consider the recommendations, and seek the views of the community about the report, prior to finalising our response to report.

“The Government will welcome feedback from stakeholders to assist us with our final consideration of this very important issue. It’s important for anyone interested to provide their feedback on the report to the government over the next six week period.”

The consultation closes on 8 September and submissions can be made to AODpolicy@act.gov.au .

UPDATE: The Greens have announced their approval.

[photo by Crash Test Addict CC BY]

Join the conversation

137
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Sounds like more ass. Your “Asscenario” misses the point that needles are already available to prisoners. He/she is just more likely to trade for the needle available. Of course if there was a way to keep these things out of the jail we wouldn’t be having this constructive discussion about drugs. Makes you wonder.

Mental Health Worker said :

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Let’s call it anecdotal evidence, evidence gathered from direct observation by reliable sources. When research fails to represent experience on the ground there are two possibilities – the research has failed to accurately describe reality, or the workers on the ground are observing events which are averaged out by actions they do not see, or are not aware of.

Both possibilities can easily occur. Research can easily fail, due to poor design. People’s’ observations can easily but unintentionally be biased.

As an example, note the oft-stated claim that there have been no reported incidents of syringes&needles being used as weapons in prisons where a NSP operates. Emphasise the word “reported” and it’s easy to see how they could have been used as weapons but this failed to show up in the research. A prisoenr threatened or robbed with a needle may nt report to authorities. Possibly even the researchers did not ask the question, so no-one reported it to them.

Those dismissing “common sense” may wish to consider this scenario – a prisoner is prescribed opiates for pain. S/he swallows them as required. Tomorrow he has access to a needle and syringe. He now has the option to not swallow, or to regurgitate, and inject them, for much greater effect. S/he is now more likely to inject. Maybe only 0.01% more likely,but still more likely than he was the day before. Same goes for any illegal drugs he occasionally manages to come across – in the absence of a needle he will ingest or smoke. Maybe he’ll save it for a day when he has a needle, and hope it doesn’t get found by officers. Given easy access to a needle, he will inject sooner, and therefore likely more frequently.

MHW

Mental Health Worker6:59 am 02 Aug 11

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Let’s call it anecdotal evidence, evidence gathered from direct observation by reliable sources. When research fails to represent experience on the ground there are two possibilities – the research has failed to accurately describe reality, or the workers on the ground are observing events which are averaged out by actions they do not see, or are not aware of.

Both possibilities can easily occur. Research can easily fail, due to poor design. People’s’ observations can easily but unintentionally be biased.

As an example, note the oft-stated claim that there have been no reported incidents of syringes&needles being used as weapons in prisons where a NSP operates. Emphasise the word “reported” and it’s easy to see how they could have been used as weapons but this failed to show up in the research. A prisoenr threatened or robbed with a needle may nt report to authorities. Possibly even the researchers did not ask the question, so no-one reported it to them.

Those dismissing “common sense” may wish to consider this scenario – a prisoner is prescribed opiates for pain. S/he swallows them as required. Tomorrow he has access to a needle and syringe. He now has the option to not swallow, or to regurgitate, and inject them, for much greater effect. S/he is now more likely to inject. Maybe only 0.01% more likely,but still more likely than he was the day before. Same goes for any illegal drugs he occasionally manages to come across – in the absence of a needle he will ingest or smoke. Maybe he’ll save it for a day when he has a needle, and hope it doesn’t get found by officers. Given easy access to a needle, he will inject sooner, and therefore likely more frequently.

MHW

Maybe it would be a good idea to supply needles, as the prisoners would be recognised and put into a detox and rehabilitation programme, that is the only reason I would agree with the needle programme

[Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

The idea of billeting a criminal has been suggested previously in the post and hence it has already been pointed out by more logical people that the suggestion is absurd and does not in any way relate to the debate about providing clean needles to prisoners.

Hang on. It might be a solution to the problem. Anyone who is sentenced for a *health issue* can be billeted out to a nice home where nice people live and nothing bad ever happens. The bad person can be assigned chain gang type activities, have no right to property, safety or privacy and god forbid any health care……(those privileges are only for nice people). The bad people will instantly become good people. Won’t that be just dandy!

Silentforce said :

This aint the 50’s, 60’s or even 70’s where anyone can claim ignorance that smoking, consuming illicit drugs, unsafe sex and sharing needles is at best unsafe and at worst, fatal. Since the the ‘Grim Reaper’ ads first appeared, anyone born since then has been subjected to the warnings and is knowledgeable of the risks of such destructive behaviours.

Their choice to do drugs, their choice to commit crime. Go to jail- tough titties.

Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

Err… maybe because transferable diseases are – wait, what’s the word – transferable? It’s not the kind of thing that you want to introduce or encourage in a population.

And also, no matter what I might think of people ending up in jail I do not wish HepC or HIV on anyone. They have access to clean needles on the outside, if you knowingly deny them access to clean needles on the inside, it’s as if you agree that forcing them to share dirty needles should be part of their sentence. And I always thought that double punishment was wrong and illegal.

The idea of billeting a criminal has been suggested previously in the post and hence it has already been pointed out by more logical people that the suggestion is absurd and does not in any way relate to the debate about providing clean needles to prisoners.

This aint the 50’s, 60’s or even 70’s where anyone can claim ignorance that smoking, consuming illicit drugs, unsafe sex and sharing needles is at best unsafe and at worst, fatal. Since the the ‘Grim Reaper’ ads first appeared, anyone born since then has been subjected to the warnings and is knowledgeable of the risks of such destructive behaviours.

Their choice to do drugs, their choice to commit crime. Go to jail- tough titties.

Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

Is the syringe in the photo the same one that Mulberry’s kid was given at school?

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

We are talking about injecting drug users here. I don’t think common sense actually applies. But as Watson pointed out you may be making an assumption. Reality is injecting drug users, inject. They will wait till they have a clean needle or they will find an old one. They wont snort, swallow or smoke. Not the ones I know. That would be a waste.

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Mental Health Worker10:44 am 31 Jul 11

Some interesting rants here. Here are a few more points to debate (logs on the fire…):

if 65% of prisoners are already Hep C positive, what are the chances of any more actually contracting it in prison? The other 35% probably aren’t injecting drug users on the outside, so unless they take it up in prison (and some may do so), they aren’t at risk of contracting it. (Bear in mind that not all prisoners are burglars and armed robbers with an injecting drug habit – there’s a significant smattering of child sex offenders, drink drivers, murderers, many of whom do not come from the injecting drug use demographic). Yes, some of the 65% may contract other strains of Hep C, or other strains of Hepatitis, but there’s a point at which we can’t protect everyone from their own poor decision making.

Provision of needles may not increase drug use in prison, but will increase INJECTING drug use. In the absence of a needle, a prisoner won’t necessarily stash the drugs for when one becomes available – they’ll injest, snort or smoke it. With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

Heroin and other opiates are not the only drugs prisoners do and will inject. In fact, some will inject ANYTHING. Some of the drugs they will now be more easily able to inject, aren’t things you want them injecting, because they won’t be all mellow and happy afterwards – and I’m thinking Ice/Amphetamine, and Cocaine. Bad enough smoked or snorted, but really bad injected. Good luck to the staff in the proposed injecting room, because it’s going to be a pretty dangerous work environment.

MHW

Willy_Bear ..

“Does that mean they contracted it prior to entering the prison ?”
Yes except for possibly one case.

“Is there some reason they are not using the service outside? ”
They would be using the service on the outside. Some are high risky people with chaotic time and resource management. They may have already contracted it in another jail community. Gear…two people….one clean needle…. Maybe they moved to the Northern Territory for a while. So many reasons but only one dirty needle.

“I noted a submission indicating the prisoners to be “overwhelminly opposed” to the program, are these linked ?”
No they are not linked in my mind. Should it matter what the prisoners think?

fgzk said :

Wily_Bear said :

Having just read Mr Moores report, it is concerning to hear him quote a a figure of 65% of ACT intravenous drug users carry Hep C. if a syringe program has not mitigated this health issue on the outside, what is going wrong ?

I believe you are going wrong. The syringe program is working. I believe the 67% is referring to prisoner not the wider community. Clean injecting equipment helps mitigate the spread of viruses.

Ok, my bad- must have misread it. Does that mean they contracted it prior to entering the prison ? Is there some reason theyare not using the service outside? I noted a submission indicating the prisoners to be “overwhelminly opposed” to the program, are these linked ?
I am neither opposed nor in favour of having this in the prison- (I don’t know enough about it), I’m genuinely interested in finding out the answers

dazzab said :

The prisoners don’t want it, the guards don’t want it and it’s an illegal activity. All arguments aside, I just can’t even comprehend why this topic comes up over and over again.

No need to comprehend this topic as JB assures us……

johnboy said :

Most people aren’t reading this thread any more.

Whilst people are not reading you can bang your head in your ass over and over again. All arguments aside. No one read that, so it didn’t happen and it wont be a problem requiring stitches and a rubber ring.

The guards need to be paid more to bend over and submit to the glove of security. The prisoners need to address the impact drug use is having on themselves and the wider community. Neither want to do it. No-one wants to pay for it.

Ass, over and over and over again?

dazzab said :

The prisoners don’t want it, the guards don’t want it and it’s an illegal activity. All arguments aside, I just can’t even comprehend why this topic comes up over and over again.

I wonder how many prisoners openly admitted the need for condoms within prison environments – yet they are provided.

shadow boxer12:27 pm 30 Jul 11

G-Fresh said :

Test inmates for narcotics and deny Parole for inmates found to be using drugs.

wow a little island of sanity and everyone missed it, as well as denying parole you could charge them with, I don’t know, possession of narcotics.

The prisoners don’t want it, the guards don’t want it and it’s an illegal activity. All arguments aside, I just can’t even comprehend why this topic comes up over and over again.

Wily_Bear said :

Having just read Mr Moores report, it is concerning to hear him quote a a figure of 65% of ACT intravenous drug users carry Hep C. if a syringe program has not mitigated this health issue on the outside, what is going wrong ?

I believe you are going wrong. The syringe program is working. I believe the 67% is referring to prisoner not the wider community. Clean injecting equipment helps mitigate the spread of viruses.

Wily_Bear said :

Having just read Mr Moores report, it is concerning to hear him quote a a figure of 65% of ACT intravenous drug users carry Hep C. if a syringe program has not mitigated this health issue on the outside, what is going wrong ?

But that doesn’t mean anything if
a) you don’t compare that figure to the figure before the syringe program was put in place
b) you don’t take into account how many of those drug users were using before the program existed

Having just read Mr Moores report, it is concerning to hear him quote a a figure of 65% of ACT intravenous drug users carry Hep C. if a syringe program has not mitigated this health issue on the outside, what is going wrong ?

Watson said :

johnboy said :

They all breathe oxygen too! Obviously breathing oxygen is what makes them criminals!!

I hear most of them wear shoes too. Watch out for people wearing shoes, they are known to get stabby at the drop of a hat!

Jim Jones said :

Increased security and detection have been tried again and again and have been proven not to be effective at preventing drug use in prison.

The idea that we should try again because it ‘it just might work this time’ is contrary to reason. (Setting this up as the same thing as “no-one’s contracted a disease from sharing needles in the short period of time that the prison has been in use yet” is quite clearly an analogy stretched well beyond breaking point.

The idea that we not having clean syringes in prison will prevent drug use in prison is laughable. There are drugs in prison, no amount of optimism or idealism will change that fact. What introducing clean syringes will do is prevent people from sharing dirty needles, which is an extremely dangerous practice.

The choice is very simple – harm minimisation, or business as usual. I don’t know about you, but given the choice between reducing the chances of harm or not, I’ll always go for the former … unless mimes are involved. F$%k mimes.

Hey that’s discrimination against mimes! I say F$%k clowns. Clowns consume a massive amount of oxygen (especially when riding stolen unicycles); they are always under the influence of fairy floss (The quality can be gauged by the redness of their nose) which causes them to have a total disregard for the rules of society. Don’t get me started on their shoes…….

Increased security and detection have been tried again and again and have been proven not to be effective at preventing drug use in prison.

The idea that we should try again because it ‘it just might work this time’ is contrary to reason. (Setting this up as the same thing as “no-one’s contracted a disease from sharing needles in the short period of time that the prison has been in use yet” is quite clearly an analogy stretched well beyond breaking point.

The idea that we not having clean syringes in prison will prevent drug use in prison is laughable. There are drugs in prison, no amount of optimism or idealism will change that fact. What introducing clean syringes will do is prevent people from sharing dirty needles, which is an extremely dangerous practice.

The choice is very simple – harm minimisation, or business as usual. I don’t know about you, but given the choice between reducing the chances of harm or not, I’ll always go for the former … unless mimes are involved. F$%k mimes.

Proboscus said :

Jim Jones said :

Proboscus said :

drug-crazed criminals

BWA AH AHAHA HA HAHAH A HAHA

You do realise you sound like the narrator from Reefer Madness when you write that stuff.

“Know your dope fiend. You will not be able to see his eyes because of tea shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can’t find a rape victim.”

So a prisoner who has injected an amphetamine based drug won’t become “drug-crazed” or violent is your head is so far up your arse that you actually believe that drugs are cool??

You might be totally missing the point of taking drugs. Ive always found “drug crazed criminals” easy to deal with when they have good gear, with clean equipment and a safe place to mix it up. I think they respect the effort.

Jim you should be getting an allowance for that.

I like the part where we provide prisoners with a weapon.

They should install shank vending machines.

The_Bulldog said :

Been some time since it got this narky. Nice.

Anyways – how about one consider the value of the “just because it hasn’t happened yet” argument and apply it to implementing a zero tolerance policy? Just because zero tolerance (arguably) hasn’t been entirely effective in relation to drugs, why should we dismiss the principal outright? Stay with me, resist the urge to respond with “because it’s stupid” and read on…

I think the core principal *everyone* can agree on is that, in theory, jail *should* be a safe and harm free environment where people are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, whilst being restricted from living amongst the community. I agree that supplying clean syringes is one way to minimise harm in the area of blood borne disease, but I would argue that stronger screening and detection would equally minimise the likelihood of drugs being there in the first place – proportionately minimising the risk of blood borne disease. If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.

So – shouldn’t we at least trial increased security and detection before we go down the path of accepting drug use in jail as inevitable?

Jumping away from the policy and into the emotive responses this issue has prompted – I think we also need to understand that to supply clean needles is not to condone the use of ilicit substances. Just so – the people supportive of this measure aren’t necessarily condoning the use of drugs, merely the fact that they feel it’s inevitable, and we have a responsibility to try and gain a measure of control in a shitty situation. I can’t really fault the logic, I just think this view is pretty bleak. So, if it’s just the same to everyone I’ll continue to strive for what’s best, not what’s better.

But why would striving for a drug-free environment have to rule out the supply of clean syringes? If zero tolerance is going to work one day, surely you must accept that it won’t happen overnight and there is value in preventing transmittable diseases in the meantime?

As far as this statement goes: “If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.”:

If my drug-addicted relative would end up in AMC, I would be hoping that they would be getting the support they need to work towards a drug-free future. I do not believe that forcing an addict to go cold turkey does anything for them, except possibly increase the risk of them overdosing as soon as they get out. So if the best way to ensure said relative’s commitment to being drug-free one day would be to provide them with clean needles and/or drugs while they work on a strategy to achieve this, I’d be much happier with that than a “let them suffer and find illegal and risky ways to get their fix” way.

But I have been told by some that there is such a thing as having too much empathy. I still don’t believe it though.

johnboy said :

They all breathe oxygen too! Obviously breathing oxygen is what makes them criminals!!

I hear most of them wear shoes too. Watch out for people wearing shoes, they are known to get stabby at the drop of a hat!

The_Bulldog said :

Been some time since it got this narky. Nice.

Anyways – how about one consider the value of the “just because it hasn’t happened yet” argument and apply it to implementing a zero tolerance policy? Just because zero tolerance (arguably) hasn’t been entirely effective in relation to drugs, why should we dismiss the principal outright? Stay with me, resist the urge to respond with “because it’s stupid” and read on…

I think the core principal *everyone* can agree on is that, in theory, jail *should* be a safe and harm free environment where people are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, whilst being restricted from living amongst the community. I agree that supplying clean syringes is one way to minimise harm in the area of blood borne disease, but I would argue that stronger screening and detection would equally minimise the likelihood of drugs being there in the first place – proportionately minimising the risk of blood borne disease. If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.

So – shouldn’t we at least trial increased security and detection before we go down the path of accepting drug use in jail as inevitable?

Jumping away from the policy and into the emotive responses this issue has prompted – I think we also need to understand that to supply clean needles is not to condone the use of ilicit substances. Just so – the people supportive of this measure aren’t necessarily condoning the use of drugs, merely the fact that they feel it’s inevitable, and we have a responsibility to try and gain a measure of control in a shitty situation. I can’t really fault the logic, I just think this view is pretty bleak. So, if it’s just the same to everyone I’ll continue to strive for what’s best, not what’s better.

Good post and it makes sense.

Now, brace yourself for the inevitable………………………………….

Jim Jones said :

Proboscus said :

drug-crazed criminals

BWA AH AHAHA HA HAHAH A HAHA

You do realise you sound like the narrator from Reefer Madness when you write that stuff.

“Know your dope fiend. You will not be able to see his eyes because of tea shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can’t find a rape victim.”

So a prisoner who has injected an amphetamine based drug won’t become “drug-crazed” or violent is your head is so far up your arse that you actually believe that drugs are cool??

Been some time since it got this narky. Nice.

Anyways – how about one consider the value of the “just because it hasn’t happened yet” argument and apply it to implementing a zero tolerance policy? Just because zero tolerance (arguably) hasn’t been entirely effective in relation to drugs, why should we dismiss the principal outright? Stay with me, resist the urge to respond with “because it’s stupid” and read on…

I think the core principal *everyone* can agree on is that, in theory, jail *should* be a safe and harm free environment where people are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, whilst being restricted from living amongst the community. I agree that supplying clean syringes is one way to minimise harm in the area of blood borne disease, but I would argue that stronger screening and detection would equally minimise the likelihood of drugs being there in the first place – proportionately minimising the risk of blood borne disease. If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.

So – shouldn’t we at least trial increased security and detection before we go down the path of accepting drug use in jail as inevitable?

Jumping away from the policy and into the emotive responses this issue has prompted – I think we also need to understand that to supply clean needles is not to condone the use of ilicit substances. Just so – the people supportive of this measure aren’t necessarily condoning the use of drugs, merely the fact that they feel it’s inevitable, and we have a responsibility to try and gain a measure of control in a shitty situation. I can’t really fault the logic, I just think this view is pretty bleak. So, if it’s just the same to everyone I’ll continue to strive for what’s best, not what’s better.

Test inmates for narcotics and deny Parole for inmates found to be using drugs.

johnboy said :

They all breathe oxygen too! Obviously breathing oxygen is what makes them criminals!!

I also breath oxygen … so … I’m one of the world’s most dangerous criminals!!!

colourful sydney racing identity4:08 pm 29 Jul 11

Tooks said :

Watson said :

Proboscus said :

johnboy said :

A safe place away from me for people who’ve already got drugs in my workplace to shoot up without spreading disease?

Yes please!

So Canberra’s most dangerous criminals are working with you?

People doing drugs are “Canberra’s most dangerous criminals’??? Wow.

Most of Canberra’s dangerous criminals (whatever that means) do use drugs.

there is a difference.

They all breathe oxygen too! Obviously breathing oxygen is what makes them criminals!!

Watson said :

Proboscus said :

johnboy said :

A safe place away from me for people who’ve already got drugs in my workplace to shoot up without spreading disease?

Yes please!

So Canberra’s most dangerous criminals are working with you?

People doing drugs are “Canberra’s most dangerous criminals’??? Wow.

Most of Canberra’s dangerous criminals (whatever that means) do use drugs.

Violet68 said :

As for threatening to jab me with a syringe, that might mean some jail time for you. Wouldn’t that be funny? I have a feeling there could be much scarier things to be *jabbed* by in there and you would be thanking your lucky stars for harm minimisation then 🙂

Maybe the jabbing he will get won’t come from a syringe 🙂

My offer still stands, next time I pick up a syringe I’ll duck over and give you a little jab and see if your all good, you should be afterall blood born viruses can’t live outside the body for long but are YOU prepared to take the risk. Nicotine is toxic I agree, however to be fatal a child would need to injest 10MG the average cigarette contain 0.5mg of nicotine of which approximately 70% is burnt off during the smoking process leaving 0.15mg meaning that for a child to injest enough nicotine through cigarette butts they would have to eat approx 60 cigarette butts in one sitting. uneducated LMAO

Most of the nicotine is left in the filter/butt, but nevermind. According to you, the bodily fluids left in a syringe outdoors (rather than being shared) can be *lethal*. Saliva is a bodily fluid commonly found on cigarette butts so be careful next time you touch one…..you might get HIV!

As for threatening to jab me with a syringe, that might mean some jail time for you. Wouldn’t that be funny? I have a feeling there could be much scarier things to be *jabbed* by in there and you would be thanking your lucky stars for harm minimisation then 🙂

Jim Jones said :

Proboscus said :

The Hilton hasn’t had a single blood borne disease passed from prisoner to prisoner inside the facility

That’s right. It hasn’t happened before. So it couldn’t possibly happen in the future, could it?

(PS – let’s just ignore the fact that the place has only been open for a couple of years).

Everytime someone uses the ‘well it hasn’t happened yet’ argument I feel the urge to cry for the sake of humanity.

I haven’t had any accidental children so maybe I should stop taking preventative action and ditch the condoms? I haven’t been hit by a car yet so lets do away with the preventative action and stop looking left and right at pedestrian crossings?

The idea of preventative action is to prevent something that hasn’t happened. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people on this site.

The_TaxMan said :

Jim Jones said :

Cigarette butts and broken glass I see in parks every damn day, and go to great lengths to clean them up and prevent kids messing around with them.

Given this, how anyone could argue that syringes/needles are more dangerous beggars belief.

Ah Jim I am so sorry of course you are correct can’t chat any longer as I am off to rob a shop with a lethal cigarette.

Actually, now that I think of it, the most dangerous thing that you should watch out for in children’s parks are crocodiles strung out on meth and carrying loaded handguns – absolutely lethal.

Jim Jones said :

Cigarette butts and broken glass I see in parks every damn day, and go to great lengths to clean them up and prevent kids messing around with them.

Given this, how anyone could argue that syringes/needles are more dangerous beggars belief.

Ah Jim I am so sorry of course you are correct can’t chat any longer as I am off to rob a shop with a lethal cigarette.

Proboscus said :

The Hilton hasn’t had a single blood borne disease passed from prisoner to prisoner inside the facility

That’s right. It hasn’t happened before. So it couldn’t possibly happen in the future, could it?

(PS – let’s just ignore the fact that the place has only been open for a couple of years).

Proboscus said :

That’s true, but I also asked if people would billet a released prisoner?

Sure! They can come join the 13 homeless people and the 7 people with paranoid schizofrenia that are currently camping in our loungeroom.

WTF?!

Just because I don’t want to mingle with these people doesn’t mean I hope they die a horrible death! I don’t like extreme right w@nkers either, yet I don’t find myself wishing they contract some horrible disease. Strange that…

Proboscus said :

johnboy said :

A safe place away from me for people who’ve already got drugs in my workplace to shoot up without spreading disease?

Yes please!

So Canberra’s most dangerous criminals are working with you?

People doing drugs are “Canberra’s most dangerous criminals’??? Wow.

Hang on, calm the f**k down. I am seeing a crucial flaw in the entire argument.

The policy is about clean needles/syringes, not about providing the drugs. The crackies are going to get the drugs in AMC anyway so the idea behind the policy is to give them clean needles since they are going to do it anyway.

If you think really hard, I know that is difficult for some of you, this policy can be used to rduce drugs in AMC. The guys coming for needles/syringes all the time are probably going to have drugs somewhere, then you can target your raids adn take their stash.

You are all so busyu arguing over something which has bugger all to do with the policy to see the big picture. The drugs will alsways be there, this policy is about giving thema ssafe way to deliver them and can be used to remove some of the drugs if done properly.

Bloody Canberrans….always too busy with your heads between your legs sniffing your own farts to see the full picture. Try thinking outside the box.

Jim Jones said :

Proboscus said :

Everyone who supports harm minimisation should be forced to live with criminals

Ah … yeah … great point … [nervous cough] … that’s really … smart … and stuff.

Nice quote – pity I didn’t say it. And nice effort on your subsequent efforts.

You sound like your a fan of Hunter, Rattenbury and Bresnan (or you could be possibly one of them) but the facts are that this isn’t about harm minimisation. The Hilton hasn’t had a single blood borne disease passed from prisoner to prisoner inside the facility – it all occurs outside within the community. So why implement something that is clearly not needed?

Like I said many posts ago – fix the needle sharing and disposing problem in the community first before considering it in a correctional facility.

fgzk said :

$300 a day (+ vehicle, expenses and “ass” allowance if applicable) .

Proboscus said :

fgzk said :

Proboscus said :

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Or, better still, have the NSP at your workplace AND have a billeting arrangement with the recently released and “rehabilitated” guests from the Hilton where they live with you and car pool with you to work each day for a clean syringe. [Insert Crickets Here]

Whilst its full of cringe moments in the work place, its easy to remain professional when you are paid.

Well I believe that professionalism isn’t measured by how much you’re paid but how you perform – but that’s off subject. I’m interested in how much you think putting up with drug-crazed criminals is worth?

$300 a day (+ vehicle and expenses) .

+ $150 ass money, right?

The_TaxMan said :

Violet68 said :

I wasn’t talking about HIV but since you are, HIV doesn’t live outside the body for very long at all….probably as long as the blood is still liquid, if that – FOOL. Cigarette butts/filters contain nicotine which is extremely toxic to small children. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting any further.

My offer still stands, next time I pick up a syringe I’ll duck over and give you a little jab and see if your all good, you should be afterall blood born viruses can’t live outside the body for long but are YOU prepared to take the risk. Nicotine is toxic I agree, however to be fatal a child would need to injest 10MG the average cigarette contain 0.5mg of nicotine of which approximately 70% is burnt off during the smoking process leaving 0.15mg meaning that for a child to injest enough nicotine through cigarette butts they would have to eat approx 60 cigarette butts in one sitting. uneducated LMAO

In my many years of attending children’s parks (and talking to other parents who do the same), I have never once seen or heard first-hand of anyone I know (or know of) encountering a syringe or needle.

Cigarette butts and broken glass I see in parks every damn day, and go to great lengths to clean them up and prevent kids messing around with them.

Given this, how anyone could argue that syringes/needles are more dangerous beggars belief.

Violet68 said :

I wasn’t talking about HIV but since you are, HIV doesn’t live outside the body for very long at all….probably as long as the blood is still liquid, if that – FOOL. Cigarette butts/filters contain nicotine which is extremely toxic to small children. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting any further.

My offer still stands, next time I pick up a syringe I’ll duck over and give you a little jab and see if your all good, you should be afterall blood born viruses can’t live outside the body for long but are YOU prepared to take the risk. Nicotine is toxic I agree, however to be fatal a child would need to injest 10MG the average cigarette contain 0.5mg of nicotine of which approximately 70% is burnt off during the smoking process leaving 0.15mg meaning that for a child to injest enough nicotine through cigarette butts they would have to eat approx 60 cigarette butts in one sitting. uneducated LMAO

$300 a day (+ vehicle, expenses and “ass” allowance if applicable) .

Proboscus said :

fgzk said :

Proboscus said :

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Or, better still, have the NSP at your workplace AND have a billeting arrangement with the recently released and “rehabilitated” guests from the Hilton where they live with you and car pool with you to work each day for a clean syringe. [Insert Crickets Here]

Whilst its full of cringe moments in the work place, its easy to remain professional when you are paid.

Well I believe that professionalism isn’t measured by how much you’re paid but how you perform – but that’s off subject. I’m interested in how much you think putting up with drug-crazed criminals is worth?

$300 a day (+ vehicle and expenses) .

Proboscus said :

drug-crazed criminals

BWA AH AHAHA HA HAHAH A HAHA

You do realise you sound like the narrator from Reefer Madness when you write that stuff.

“Know your dope fiend. You will not be able to see his eyes because of tea shades, but his knuckles will be white from inner tension and his pants will be crusted with semen from constantly jacking off when he can’t find a rape victim.”

johnboy said :

Most people aren’t reading this thread any more.

Also, it’s rude to make fun of retarded people.

Proboscus said :

Everyone who supports harm minimisation should be forced to live with criminals

Ah … yeah … great point … [nervous cough] … that’s really … smart … and stuff.

Most people aren’t reading this thread any more.

fgzk said :

Proboscus said :

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Or, better still, have the NSP at your workplace AND have a billeting arrangement with the recently released and “rehabilitated” guests from the Hilton where they live with you and car pool with you to work each day for a clean syringe. [Insert Crickets Here]

Whilst its full of cringe moments in the work place, its easy to remain professional when you are paid.

Well I believe that professionalism isn’t measured by how much you’re paid but how you perform – but that’s off subject. I’m interested in how much you think putting up with drug-crazed criminals is worth?

johnboy said :

nope, but that wasn’t your question.

That’s true, but I also asked if people would billet a released prisoner?

As you’re the only one who answered half the question in the positive (besides the crickets) I’d say that a large amount of people here, and in the community, are dead-set against the NSP.

Proboscus said :

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Or, better still, have the NSP at your workplace AND have a billeting arrangement with the recently released and “rehabilitated” guests from the Hilton where they live with you and car pool with you to work each day for a clean syringe. [Insert Crickets Here]

Whilst its full of cringe moments in the work place, its easy to remain professional when you are paid.

The_TaxMan said :

Violet68 said :

Next time you’re in a kid’s playground check out the broken glass and cigarette butts – probably more lethal to a child than the ocassional syringe you might come across..

Wow a genuinely insane person posting here I mean some people’s comments are out there and argumentative but this is the best (worst) comment ever posted on any forum I have ever seen. Stating that cigarette butts are more lethal than HIV now that’s “out there” BIG TIME. Tell you what next time I find a needle in a playground, park or public space and that would be last Friday in the carpark behind the Canberra Centre I’ll bring it over and give you just a little stick with it and we’ll see how you cope waiting for six months to find out whether you have contracted a life threatening disease and then tell me that a cigarette butt is more lethal, now imagine for one second in that tiny little mind of yours that it’s not you but your four year old daughter. FOOL!

I wasn’t talking about HIV but since you are, HIV doesn’t live outside the body for very long at all….probably as long as the blood is still liquid, if that – FOOL. Cigarette butts/filters contain nicotine which is extremely toxic to small children. I suggest you educate yourself before commenting any further.

nope, but that wasn’t your question.

johnboy said :

A safe place away from me for people who’ve already got drugs in my workplace to shoot up without spreading disease?

Yes please!

So Canberra’s most dangerous criminals are working with you?

Proboscus said :

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Huh? Why would I object to having clean syringes available at my office? Do I need to be scared that all the paper pushers are suddenly going to shoot up heroin because they’ve been given a free needle? “Oh, I would’ve never considered a life of drug addiction and social isolation until someone gave me a needle and I thought ‘Hey, why not?’. I have a needle already, might as well go score some heroin now because otherwise this syringe will just be wasted, which would be a real shame.”

*massive eye rolling*

A safe place away from me for people who’ve already got drugs in my workplace to shoot up without spreading disease?

Yes please!

I suggest to those supporting the NSP “trial” that maybe it should be held in your workplace.

Or, better still, have the NSP at your workplace AND have a billeting arrangement with the recently released and “rehabilitated” guests from the Hilton where they live with you and car pool with you to work each day for a clean syringe. [Insert Crickets Here]

colourful sydney racing identity10:27 am 29 Jul 11

Jim Jones said :

The examples given of ‘zero tolerance working’ thus far have been:

– The Salvation Army (and John Howard) reckons it’s a good idea
– One Scottish professor reckons it’s a good idea
– Some offhand references to the Olympics and sport

Epic fail.

You have forgotten that if you don’t support zero tolerance you support the procuring of children for rape.

Frots Three post nutbag…………….

The examples given of ‘zero tolerance working’ thus far have been:

– The Salvation Army (and John Howard) reckons it’s a good idea
– One Scottish professor reckons it’s a good idea
– Some offhand references to the Olympics and sport

Epic fail.

The Frots said :

Jim Jones said :

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

Steady on old chap – no point in honking and bleating around the place because you were able to log onto Wikipedia.

Really hard to get a post now without the Wiki references being wheeled out. As Wiki tends to rely on contributors and their contributions (I know this because I contribute to some science articles in there), perhaps more noted comments will do as well?

So, let’s take a sample.

Government must show “zero tolerance” on drugs, says expert
Professor Neil McKeganey critical of “soft approach” to drug abuse
Monday 05 November 2007, The Journal Issue 1

A leading Scottish expert on drug abuse has called for a “zero tolerance” strategy from the Scottish government in dealing with illegal drugs. Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow said that the drug situation in Scotland had reached breaking point and that the authorities were giving out the wrong signals. He highlighted the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug as a symptom of a “soft approach”.

Speaking to a group of Swedish politicians, he praised Sweden’s zero tolerance approach to drugs. “There are potential benefits for Scotland in adopting a zero tolerance policy on illegal drugs. We can learn from the Swedish example but there are also aspects of our approach here to illegal drugs that could benefit the Swedes.” Sweden has one of the lowest levels of drug abuse in Europe.

Tomas Hallberg, the director of European Cities Against Drugs Initiative, was amongst the delegation.

Or perhaps this article by Kate Burgess in 2003:

A return to a zero tolerance approach, it aims to stamp out illicit drug use with an emphasis on law enforcement.
Prime Minister John Howard launched the policy in conjunction with his chief drugs policy advisor of the Salvation Army. Pat Daly, a spokesperson for the Salvation Army supports a zero tolerance approach with an emphasis on ‘Harm Prevention’. “There is no safe way to do drugs,” he said. “Law enforcement is part of a three-pronged approach to make drugs socially unacceptable,” he added.

Since Tough on Drugs was introduced, the proportion of the population who had used an illicit drug dropped from 22% in 1998 to 19.6% in 2001. The number of Australians aged over 13 who had been offered heroin decreased from 2.4% to 1.5% over the same period, according to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) in 2001.

Zero Tolerance is practised in many areas, for example the NSW Police (2003), the major sporting codes, the Olympics and so on. While it doesn’t get all the drugs, as we know, it does contribute heavily to the reduction of drug use.

So Jimbo, back to the original post. Drug use in prisons can be reduced dramatically using a zero tolerance approach.

Oh we could go all week quoting people for and against. Just Google it.

For example, the Sweden study is called flawed by some experts because: “In a climate of intolerance, who’s going to admit that they’re a drug user?” And apparently they have a much higher incidence of drug overdose. If of course you just want the drug users off the street, overdosing might suit you better than trying to help them, as it’s a much faster solution.

Policy makers make of the stats what they want. And I think it is very brave of the ACT Govt to not try to hide the fact that there are drugs in prison. Because that would’ve been the easy way out.

Violet68 said :

Next time you’re in a kid’s playground check out the broken glass and cigarette butts – probably more lethal to a child than the ocassional syringe you might come across..

Wow a genuinely insane person posting here I mean some people’s comments are out there and argumentative but this is the best (worst) comment ever posted on any forum I have ever seen. Stating that cigarette butts are more lethal than HIV now that’s “out there” BIG TIME. Tell you what next time I find a needle in a playground, park or public space and that would be last Friday in the carpark behind the Canberra Centre I’ll bring it over and give you just a little stick with it and we’ll see how you cope waiting for six months to find out whether you have contracted a life threatening disease and then tell me that a cigarette butt is more lethal, now imagine for one second in that tiny little mind of yours that it’s not you but your four year old daughter. FOOL!

I-filed said :

Needle “exchange” program has always been a misnomer. Addicts are ALL selfish a*seholes – hence the number of syringes that end up in kids’ playgrounds. It’s inevitably a “needle distribution” not “exchange” program. I recall that Canberra’s first “exchange” program was intended to operate on that basis – you hand one in, get a clean one. But the addicts were too slack to hand in, and preferred to re-use a needle than bother with the exchange part. I wonder how the jail will manage to convince these folk to bother picking up their old needle and exchange it; perhaps in controlled jail conditions there’s a chance.

Crap. The number of syringes found in *kids playgrounds* in no way compares to the actual number of syringes used by a large percentage of our population (not just those who are in and out of jail or considered “junkies”). Next time you’re in a kid’s playground check out the broken glass and cigarette butts – probably more lethal to a child than the ocassional syringe you might come across.

NSP’s don’t encourage drug use or supply drugs. They are set up to minimise harm and maximise health. They educate people on safe use and disposal of syringes and provide the practical means to do so. Our society supports the idea of Courts placing people with substance abuse issues into a controlled micro environment where drugs are available, unregulated and highly sought after. It is unrealistic to expect them to stop using in such in an environment and unacceptable to keep turning a blind eye to the use and sharing of handmade syringes or blunt ones and the risks of contracting disease or developing abscesses and infections.

As for dogs sniffing bums, it seems to be visitors that cop that. Might help if they got a whiff of the staff.

Jim Jones said :

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

Steady on old chap – no point in honking and bleating around the place because you were able to log onto Wikipedia.

Really hard to get a post now without the Wiki references being wheeled out. As Wiki tends to rely on contributors and their contributions (I know this because I contribute to some science articles in there), perhaps more noted comments will do as well?

So, let’s take a sample.

Government must show “zero tolerance” on drugs, says expert
Professor Neil McKeganey critical of “soft approach” to drug abuse
Monday 05 November 2007, The Journal Issue 1

A leading Scottish expert on drug abuse has called for a “zero tolerance” strategy from the Scottish government in dealing with illegal drugs. Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow said that the drug situation in Scotland had reached breaking point and that the authorities were giving out the wrong signals. He highlighted the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug as a symptom of a “soft approach”.

Speaking to a group of Swedish politicians, he praised Sweden’s zero tolerance approach to drugs. “There are potential benefits for Scotland in adopting a zero tolerance policy on illegal drugs. We can learn from the Swedish example but there are also aspects of our approach here to illegal drugs that could benefit the Swedes.” Sweden has one of the lowest levels of drug abuse in Europe.

Tomas Hallberg, the director of European Cities Against Drugs Initiative, was amongst the delegation.

Or perhaps this article by Kate Burgess in 2003:

A return to a zero tolerance approach, it aims to stamp out illicit drug use with an emphasis on law enforcement.
Prime Minister John Howard launched the policy in conjunction with his chief drugs policy advisor of the Salvation Army. Pat Daly, a spokesperson for the Salvation Army supports a zero tolerance approach with an emphasis on ‘Harm Prevention’. “There is no safe way to do drugs,” he said. “Law enforcement is part of a three-pronged approach to make drugs socially unacceptable,” he added.

Since Tough on Drugs was introduced, the proportion of the population who had used an illicit drug dropped from 22% in 1998 to 19.6% in 2001. The number of Australians aged over 13 who had been offered heroin decreased from 2.4% to 1.5% over the same period, according to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) in 2001.

Zero Tolerance is practised in many areas, for example the NSW Police (2003), the major sporting codes, the Olympics and so on. While it doesn’t get all the drugs, as we know, it does contribute heavily to the reduction of drug use.

So Jimbo, back to the original post. Drug use in prisons can be reduced dramatically using a zero tolerance approach.

Watson said :

The Frots said :

I’m guessing that you don’t like the reality of your position. If you find it offensive, then imagine how people who have been affected by narcotics, or lost family and friends, are finding your solution? Not nice is it..

Do YOU actually know people who have or had to live with the reality of drug-addicted family members or friends? I thought not. .

YOU thought not…? Really? Now what on earth would make you say that? Do you know?

Let’s get it straight, I certainly do. Unless of course it’s just more convenient for you that I don’t! Let me know.

fgzk said :

Frots the sun will rise but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

You could at least be accurate in your statements

Sunrise at 7:02 AM in direction 67° East-northeast

Zero tolerance wont do what you said it would either. Not even close.

Stick to +1ing

Insightful – glad that I am now fully aware of which way the sun will come up, precisely. You don’t have much on the big picture stuff though do you?

Needle “exchange” program has always been a misnomer. Addicts are ALL selfish a*seholes – hence the number of syringes that end up in kids’ playgrounds. It’s inevitably a “needle distribution” not “exchange” program. I recall that Canberra’s first “exchange” program was intended to operate on that basis – you hand one in, get a clean one. But the addicts were too slack to hand in, and preferred to re-use a needle than bother with the exchange part. I wonder how the jail will manage to convince these folk to bother picking up their old needle and exchange it; perhaps in controlled jail conditions there’s a chance.

Anyone ever heard of drug detector dogs? Is there a valid reason why a number of these dogs can’t be based at the prison?

Mental Health Worker8:27 pm 28 Jul 11

Just to unfashionably return to topic:

• the report is shallow and biased; any report on drug use in prisons that fails to mention misuse of prescription drugs, is either naive or has some hidden agenda (such as not wanting to offend prescribers); see http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/resources/2010IDRS1/$file/National_+IDRS_2010.pdf
• the report misrepresents and greatly understates CPSU and correctional officer opposition to a needle and syringe program; it describes it as if there are gaps in the opposition that can be exploited; there aren’t; correctional officers, and most other staff working there, are staunchly against a NSP;
• the report quotes the Burnet Review extensively, but that report was rubbish, and the authors of this new report openly admitted such in their “stakeholder consultations”; so why do they rely on it so much?
• their stakeholder consultations were no such thing – they were focus groups intended to try to convince participants of the merits, and the lack of drawbacks, of a NSP; think “push-polling” and you’ll get the picture;
• the recommendations ignore the fact that there is simply no room (not philosophical room, but physical space) in the health centre to try any of the models; what other service provision will stop to make room for an injecting room?
• the authors point out the problems with some of their less-preferred models, but rather than rejecting them as impractical, they recommend them as fallback options if their preferred models don’t work; this suggests that the authors support a NSP at all costs; the vending machine model is the worst of all worlds, giving access to needles to everyone in the prison, no matter how “mad, bad or sad” they are, if their recommended approach is adopted and options 1 and 2 fail. There will be deaths as a result, unquestionably – the only question will be “of whom?”. Will they be suicide, accidental overdoses, murders of prisoners or murders of staff?
• The report gives little attention to the need to establish baseline measures before introducing a NSP. You can’t evaluate an initiative properly AFTER introducing it. But to establish baseline measures would take time, and there seems to be an unholy rush to introduce a NSP, so no time to properly design the evaluation.
• There are numerous other problems with the report that cannot be mentioned here, and that will not be in submissions as staff working at the prison will not be permitted to make submissions.

MHW

We know we can’t keep drugs out of the country, off the streets, and out of prisons. Just say no, just increase security, just increase surveillance, don’t work. So, lets accept this, not give up, but try to deal with the situation as it really exists. Prison sentences are handed out to drug addicts, they have access to drugs while in prison, but their sentence did not include “transmission of blood borne virus” while incarcerated. Give them safe access to needles and treatment to kick the habit.

Couldn’t agree more. Perhaps if prison sentences were not handed out to substance users/abusers and this was treated as a health issue rather than a *criminal* one, there wouldn’t be such a need for a NSP within the AMC. Someone called the AMC, the Hilton. For a person who is substance dependent, it is not exactly the best place to go through withdrawal, develop self esteem OR gain a positive outlook on the world. Rather, they are having to come back to *reality* within an environment that is hostile and frightening. From what I have seen, no work is done to address the underlying issues related to substance use. Rather, the *prisoner” is thrown in the mix and expected to survive. The notion of a Therapeutic Community within a jail is ridiculous and clashes with the philosophies surrounding TC’s. No wonder there is such a high rate of overdose upon release.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955973/

The Frots said :

I’m guessing that you don’t like the reality of your position. If you find it offensive, then imagine how people who have been affected by narcotics, or lost family and friends, are finding your solution? Not nice is it..

Do YOU actually know people who have or had to live with the reality of drug-addicted family members or friends? I thought not. Because the ones I know would all without exception choose for having the criminal element taken out of the drug supply so they wouldn’t have to worry about their kids mingling with the most dodgy, scum-of-the-earth dealers and them manipulating and stealing from their own relatives and friends to find money for an expensive fix. All on top of worrying about the effects of the drug habit. And they probably would lean towards calling the drug habit itself a lesser problem than their kids being pushed into crime and out of mainstream society.

Criminalisation of drug use does more good than bad and only benefits the most unwanted elements in society. Not the unfortunate stupid who decided at some stage during their teens that trying heroin would be a cool thing to do.

The Frots said :

Zero tolerance is actually a policy JB. It was used in NYC and it was effective.

Nope.

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

Insert the cold nose of a (human rights compliant) sniffer dog up every asshole that enters the grounds.

The so called “War against Drugs” has been lost. Lost in Mexico where Drug Lords rule the country, lost at national borders where corrupt officials are offered too much money to turn down, lost on the streets where so called “Bikie Gang” thugs have $10M homes, and lost each time a corrupt police officer takes the money instead of making the arrest. The so called “War against Drugs” has generated a global network of criminal gangs making huge profits, in this case stretching from the poppy fields of Afghanistan to the user in prison.

We know we can’t keep drugs out of the country, off the streets, and out of prisons. Just say no, just increase security, just increase surveillance, don’t work. So, lets accept this, not give up, but try to deal with the situation as it really exists. Prison sentences are handed out to drug addicts, they have access to drugs while in prison, but their sentence did not include “transmission of blood borne virus” while incarcerated. Give them safe access to needles and treatment to kick the habit.

johnboy said :

The trouble with “zero tolerance” devotees is they forget that it came to prominence in New York where it was implemented with a quadrupling (from memory) of funding to the NYPD.

It’s not about a policy change as every idiot who sprouts it seems to thing, it’s about a massive re-allocation of resources to enforce the rule of law.

Most analysis of New York’s success in reducing crime suggests it had less to do with “zero tolerance” per se, and much more to do with finally having lots of police out and about.

Zero tolerance is actually a policy JB. It was used in NYC and it was effective. They did allocate extra resources but the cost was neutralised by the reduction in other resources that were used to support things such as narcotic centres, etc.

But in the case of a gaol, you effectively have a ‘box’ and the idea is to keep things from getting into the ‘box’. NYC Police had a much bigger playing field with much more issues.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Using clean needles saves lives.
Don’t weasel away from likening my comments to supporting child rape. it is baselss, offensive and nothing but a reffuge for someone who can not answer a simple question to defend their position

You may want to have a read of the post again.

Now in answer to your question……………….ah, wait……………….I already did………..again!!!

You need to understand CSRI that while your life may revolve around statistics and the importance of not doing anything without them, I do not have any statistics for you. I could of course have a look – the internet is quick and dirty enough for that – but I think that the position of ‘zero tolerance’ speaks for itself.

Now, ask me again about whether I have any ‘stats’ to support my position……………………………..

it has not been answered “Where has zero tolerence been effective?”

Sure, he might not have any fancy ‘evidence’ or ‘research’ that backs up what he says, but … blah blah something about common sense and drugs are bad.

johnboy said :

How do you think the prison officers making big bucks selling needles will vote?

So Johnboy, the remand prisoners are entitled to a presumption of innocence, yet the guards who work in the jail are not?
Have there been cases of this happening?

The trouble with “zero tolerance” devotees is they forget that it came to prominence in New York where it was implemented with a quadrupling (from memory) of funding to the NYPD.

It’s not about a policy change as every idiot who sprouts it seems to thing, it’s about a massive re-allocation of resources to enforce the rule of law.

Most analysis of New York’s success in reducing crime suggests it had less to do with “zero tolerance” per se, and much more to do with finally having lots of police out and about.

colourful sydney racing identity4:50 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Using clean needles saves lives.
Don’t weasel away from likening my comments to supporting child rape. it is baselss, offensive and nothing but a reffuge for someone who can not answer a simple question to defend their position

You may want to have a read of the post again.

Now in answer to your question……………….ah, wait……………….I already did………..again!!!

You need to understand CSRI that while your life may revolve around statistics and the importance of not doing anything without them, I do not have any statistics for you. I could of course have a look – the internet is quick and dirty enough for that – but I think that the position of ‘zero tolerance’ speaks for itself.

Now, ask me again about whether I have any ‘stats’ to support my position……………………………..

it has not been answered “Where has zero tolerence been effective?”

Jim Jones said :

The Frots said :

Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained.

BWA HAHA HAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA HA AHAHA HA HA HAHA A HAHA HAHA A

Actually, it probably could be achieved in prison (in theory); non-contact visits, full screening of staff when they enter the facility etc. But obviously in reality, this won’t happen, as those policies wouldn’t be human rights compliant.

They won’t keep drugs out of the AMC, because they’ll never go down the path of the kinds of policy I mentioned above. Even visitors caught smuggling drugs in aren’t banned from the facility, as that would be a breach of human rights.

Given half the prison population already have diseases like Hep C, and a majority of inmates are there due to crimes relating directly or indirectly to drug abuse/addiction, I would prefer a policy that prevents them taking drugs, so they have a chance to get off them and have a genuine shot at rehabilitation. This needle exchange may minimise the spread of infectious diseases within the prison, but it’s also going to allow inmates to remain drug dependant during their sentence. In the long run, is that really helping anyone?

Frots the sun will rise but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

You could at least be accurate in your statements

Sunrise at 7:02 AM in direction 67° East-northeast

Zero tolerance wont do what you said it would either. Not even close.

Stick to +1ing

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Using clean needles saves lives.
Don’t weasel away from likening my comments to supporting child rape. it is baselss, offensive and nothing but a reffuge for someone who can not answer a simple question to defend their position

You may want to have a read of the post again.

Now in answer to your question……………….ah, wait……………….I already did………..again!!!

You need to understand CSRI that while your life may revolve around statistics and the importance of not doing anything without them, I do not have any statistics for you. I could of course have a look – the internet is quick and dirty enough for that – but I think that the position of ‘zero tolerance’ speaks for itself.

Now, ask me again about whether I have any ‘stats’ to support my position……………………………..

Jim Jones said :

The Frots said :

Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained.

BWA HAHA HAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA HA AHAHA HA HA HAHA A HAHA HAHA A

Outstanding effort Jimbo – you bring the usual advances to the table that we are all used to.

Stupid really should hurt, shouldn’t it?

colourful sydney racing identity4:25 pm 28 Jul 11

Using clean needles saves lives.
Don’t weasel away from likening my comments to supporting child rape. it is baselss, offensive and nothing but a reffuge for someone who can not answer a simple question to defend their position

The Frots said :

Your question, if you read above, was answered. Zero tolerance is being tried – but there are long ways to go. But they are trying. If you are expecting stats, I do not have them. Feel free to comment about ‘no empirical evidence to support this and that………..blah, blah………but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

BWA HA HA AHAHA HA HAHA AHA HA AH HA

oh … stop … please … you’re killing me

The Frots said :

Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained.

BWA HAHA HAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA HA AHAHA HA HA HAHA A HAHA HAHA A

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

Your question, if you read above, was answered. Zero tolerance is being tried – but there are long ways to go. But they are trying. If you are expecting stats, I do not have them. Feel free to comment about ‘no empirical evidence to support this and that………..blah, blah………but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

You can find no evidence to support your claims and then resort to likening my position to procuring children to be raped – that is what I find offensive. I am surprised you haven’t brought out the ‘that sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler would say’ tripe.

And, for the record, I have lost both family and friends to illicit substances, my position is more likely to save lives than yours.

By advocating the use of narcotics in gaols, how is that likely to save lives exactly? And do you give these drugs to people who weren’t using them when they went into gaol? That would be helpful I’m sure.

Do you think that these drugs in gaol won’t be used as another ‘supply and demand’ crime by the dominant inmates? Won’t they be ‘pressuring’ the weaker ones to get their ‘legal drugs’ as well?

My point on the issue of rape within prison, as unpleasant as it is to think about, is that using your analogy where do you stop giving in? At what point do you say ‘no’? We probably all know people and have family who are either lost or affected by narcotics and you are no exception. My view is – zero tolerance.

colourful sydney racing identity3:58 pm 28 Jul 11

maloomike said :

There is also a point to make here as well. In most cases the use of illicit drugs are generally associated with crime, hence prison. Allowing prisoners to continue their drug habit will not rehabilitate them after prison. Once released what stops them from committing another crime to fuel their addiction? Is the community better off?

Which is precisely why we need drug law reform. Who profits from prohibition? Certainly not people who are mugged or have their house burgled.

colourful sydney racing identity3:57 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

Your question, if you read above, was answered. Zero tolerance is being tried – but there are long ways to go. But they are trying. If you are expecting stats, I do not have them. Feel free to comment about ‘no empirical evidence to support this and that………..blah, blah………but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

You can find no evidence to support your claims and then resort to likening my position to procuring children to be raped – that is what I find offensive. I am surprised you haven’t brought out the ‘that sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler would say’ tripe.

And, for the record, I have lost both family and friends to illicit substances, my position is more likely to save lives than yours.

There is also a point to make here as well. In most cases the use of illicit drugs are generally associated with crime, hence prison. Allowing prisoners to continue their drug habit will not rehabilitate them after prison. Once released what stops them from committing another crime to fuel their addiction? Is the community better off?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

That is really beyond the pale.

I am arguing for harm minimisation and you liken my argument to providing children to be raped by prisoners? I think the fact that you would make such a leap reflects pretty poorly on you.

It is a highly offensive way to avoid a simple question, which I will reitterate, ‘where has zero tolerance been effective?’

I’m guessing that you don’t like the reality of your position. If you find it offensive, then imagine how people who have been affected by narcotics, or lost family and friends, are finding your solution? Not nice is it.

Your question, if you read above, was answered. Zero tolerance is being tried – but there are long ways to go. But they are trying. If you are expecting stats, I do not have them. Feel free to comment about ‘no empirical evidence to support this and that………..blah, blah………but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

colourful sydney racing identity3:25 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

That is really beyond the pale.

I am arguing for harm minimisation and you liken my argument to providing children to be raped by prisoners? I think the fact that you would make such a leap reflects pretty poorly on you.

It is a highly offensive way to avoid a simple question, which I will reitterate, ‘where has zero tolerance been effective?’

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

colourful sydney racing identity3:11 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

I worked at Long Bay Gaol (CIP), I can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of drugs in prisons are bought in by the Officers that work there. AMC is no different, it is absolutely possible to stop drugs entering the prison in any worthwhile quantity and that is to subject EVERY person that enters to complete screening it’s not difficult, it’s not expensive but it will require staff at all levels be subjected to scrutiny and that is an issue for the staff. The crims are searched after every visit (strip naked, open your mouth, run your fingers through your hair, lift you jewels and finally bend over spread your cheeks) it’s not a pleasant task for either the crim or the officer but it is done after every visit NO exceptions.
The evidence is available to prove the fact that not one single prisoner has entered the AMC clean and left with Hep C or HIV or any other blood born disease but the Government will not release these files because it would shoot down their own argument.
Prisons are for designed as punishment, rehabilitation is a by product that few ever embrace. People make choices in their life some good and some bad, if you choose to commit a crime and end up in prison then you have 2 choices once your there and they are use the time to improve yourself as best you can and it can be done if prisoners choose to but if they choose to maintain the same character that got them there in the first place then they will always come back again and again. There is no place for a needle exchange program in prisons, manage the prison properly and the need for this type of program becomes mute.

colourful sydney racing identity2:07 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

I find it much more likely, that crooked drug selling guards talk about magical drug fairies throwing valuable drug filled tennis balls over the wall to god knows who, than that it actually happens.

Thevoiceofchoice2:00 pm 28 Jul 11

@#33 I know. The old tennisball over the fence trick etc. Crack down on this coming in and there won’t be a need for needles, just good ol’ prison hooch.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Thevoiceofchoice said :

johnboy said :

How do you think the prison officers making big bucks selling needles will vote?

+2 The drugs don’t come in through visitors either

Drugs don’t have to be physically carried to get into the prison. There are other ways it can be done.

colourful sydney racing identity1:47 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Thevoiceofchoice1:28 pm 28 Jul 11

johnboy said :

How do you think the prison officers making big bucks selling needles will vote?

+2 The drugs don’t come in through visitors either

johnboy said :

How do you think the prison officers making big bucks selling needles will vote?

+1

Proboscus said :

Are you for real? A needle exchange program has existed for years in the community and hasn’t worked. If it did, none of the junkies in Canberra would be disease ridden and there would be the added bonus of no used syringes in our parks, playgrounds or on our ovals for our kids to step on or curiously pick up.

This is a very good point, and something that should be discussed a bit further. Why hasn’t the program worked ‘on the outside’? Or has it worked, and we just don’t see it?

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Henry82 said :

Imo let the prison officers decide – they’re the ones on the front line. However, they shouldnt be shooting up anyway, perhaps the budget can be used on drug detection, rather than needle exchange

While we’re at it, we can let teachers decide education policy, the police can be in charge of law and order policy, and we’ll let the financial sector self-regulate too … what could possibly go wrong?

Watson said :

Aren’t they putting the safety of the guards first by supplying the prisoners with clean needles? There is less chance that a needle that has only been used once is infected with some disease than a needle that has been passed onto a dozen people.

And by that logic, police should hand out knives to kids. So if they stab someone, it will be a clean knife

How do you think the prison officers making big bucks selling needles will vote?

Proboscus said :

Innovation said :

OK I’m going to show my ignorance, and I haven’t read the report to see if it answers my questions, but why doesn’t the prison conduct regular and random (or even daily) drug tests? Anyone caught with drugs in their system would be immediately isolated, treated, and subject to daily drug testing for a lengthy period thereafter. If we drug test drivers and athletes what makes prisoners so unique?

If this is already done, then I’m out of ideas as to how to stop needles and drugs getting into the prison system and, like many, I’m torn between the safety (needs) of the prison officers and the safety (needs) of all prisoners.

I may be in the minority here but surely you’d put the safety of the guards first? Prisoners know the risks involved with intravenous drug use and are still happy taking them – even within the confines of the Hilton.

There are also the issues of who’s responsible when one of Canberra’s finest overdoses? Will Katy put her hand up and say “Oops, my bad”.

Or when a guard gets stabbed with a syringe or suffers a needlestick injury – who will say “No worries champ – it’s my fault”?

The people in the Canbera jail are not there for being wonderful contributers to our community – they’re scum who should do their time, do any rehabilitation or programs that their supposed to do and then be reintegrated into the community ONLY when they are fit to do so.

Aren’t they putting the safety of the guards first by supplying the prisoners with clean needles? There is less chance that a needle that has only been used once is infected with some disease than a needle that has been passed onto a dozen people.

Imo let the prison officers decide – they’re the ones on the front line. However, they shouldnt be shooting up anyway, perhaps the budget can be used on drug detection, rather than needle exchange

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

OK guys, you’re having a good old huff and puff, but until people wake up in the morning saying “why would I want to be a lazy public servant hitting on cute grads between planning morning tea when I can be a prison guard!” we’re going to have drugs in the prison.

Now do you want everyone going into the prison to be coming out a nest of infectious diseases or not?

Disagree JB. It is prison – the end!

We have a lot of research and policy papers available on why drugs cannot be kept out of prison. Everyone seems to just roll over to the idea that it’s here, man up and deal with it. We, and I do mean all of us, should be asking why is it so difficult to stop. As we go through the reasons why it is, deal with those issues one by one until we get a zero drug policy.

If we don’t approach the drug issue in prisons as a zero tolerance policy, then we have simply given up. We have decided it’s simply too hard and we’ll sit this one out. What’s next after that that we simply roll over for?

It is not impossible, but damn its hard. But we need to persist with it.

Sure there’s a lot of research and policy work done by a bunch of people who’ve devoted their lives to developing an understanding of the issues … but let’s just ignore that and go with a gut-feeling of fear and loathing — that people in prison are morally evil — and follow a zero tolerance policy that’s never demonstrated any level of effectiveness anywhere on the face of the earth.

OH WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!

Proboscus said :

Watson said :

Proboscus said :

Can Katy, or one of her mob of f***tards, tell us how an NSP contributes to improving a prisoners prospects of living a law abiding and useful life?

By replying I’m feeling like I’m agreeing to being a f***tard, but I will rise above your dizzying heights of rationality and eloquence.

How does NOT putting policies in place to prevent an increased risk of attracting HIV or Hepatatis increase their chances of making it in the outside world?

Are you for real? A needle exchange program has existed for years in the community and hasn’t worked. If it did, none of the junkies in Canberra would be disease ridden and there would be the added bonus of no used syringes in our parks, playgrounds or on our ovals for our kids to step on or curiously pick up.

My information is that not a single prisoner has contracted Hepatitis, HIV or any other disease whilst in the Hilton – it’s contracted in the community and brought in. Keep the needles out of the prison and fix up the program in the community.

I would like to believe you, but it’s a bit “he said, she said” without any reliable sources to back this up.

And it’s not because not all druggies use the syringe exchange program that none of them do. If even only a few use it, it’s worth it.

colourful sydney racing identity12:23 pm 28 Jul 11

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

+1 As you say yourself ‘We have a lot of research and policy papers available on why drugs cannot be kept out of prison.’. This is what we call evidence. Evidence shows that your proposal cannot work, hence the need for an alternative.

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

johnboy said :

OK guys, you’re having a good old huff and puff, but until people wake up in the morning saying “why would I want to be a lazy public servant hitting on cute grads between planning morning tea when I can be a prison guard!” we’re going to have drugs in the prison.

Now do you want everyone going into the prison to be coming out a nest of infectious diseases or not?

Disagree JB. It is prison – the end!

We have a lot of research and policy papers available on why drugs cannot be kept out of prison. Everyone seems to just roll over to the idea that it’s here, man up and deal with it. We, and I do mean all of us, should be asking why is it so difficult to stop. As we go through the reasons why it is, deal with those issues one by one until we get a zero drug policy.

If we don’t approach the drug issue in prisons as a zero tolerance policy, then we have simply given up. We have decided it’s simply too hard and we’ll sit this one out. What’s next after that that we simply roll over for?

It is not impossible, but damn its hard. But we need to persist with it.

Would taking away their needles be a violation of their human rights. Probably a law suit in the making.

Watson said :

Proboscus said :

Can Katy, or one of her mob of f***tards, tell us how an NSP contributes to improving a prisoners prospects of living a law abiding and useful life?

By replying I’m feeling like I’m agreeing to being a f***tard, but I will rise above your dizzying heights of rationality and eloquence.

How does NOT putting policies in place to prevent an increased risk of attracting HIV or Hepatatis increase their chances of making it in the outside world?

Are you for real? A needle exchange program has existed for years in the community and hasn’t worked. If it did, none of the junkies in Canberra would be disease ridden and there would be the added bonus of no used syringes in our parks, playgrounds or on our ovals for our kids to step on or curiously pick up.

My information is that not a single prisoner has contracted Hepatitis, HIV or any other disease whilst in the Hilton – it’s contracted in the community and brought in. Keep the needles out of the prison and fix up the program in the community.

colourful sydney racing identity11:33 am 28 Jul 11

PBO said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Anyone who thinks that the actions of Sherrif Joe Arpaio are something to model a justice system on are either ignorant, ill informed or idiotic.

Why, because he has cut down on costs and cut through the BS that is endemic in our prison systems? I agree that some of his methods are a bit harsh, but they work!

Bit harsh is the understatement of the year.

You do know that he applies his methods to people on remand? That is, people who have not been convicted of a crime and are therefore given the presumption of innocence.

You do also know that an Arizona State University study that he commissioned himself, has shown that there has been no reduction in recidivism rates under his watch?

He is no hero, he is a publicity seeking sociopath.

Innovation said :

OK I’m going to show my ignorance, and I haven’t read the report to see if it answers my questions, but why doesn’t the prison conduct regular and random (or even daily) drug tests? Anyone caught with drugs in their system would be immediately isolated, treated, and subject to daily drug testing for a lengthy period thereafter. If we drug test drivers and athletes what makes prisoners so unique?

If this is already done, then I’m out of ideas as to how to stop needles and drugs getting into the prison system and, like many, I’m torn between the safety (needs) of the prison officers and the safety (needs) of all prisoners.

I may be in the minority here but surely you’d put the safety of the guards first? Prisoners know the risks involved with intravenous drug use and are still happy taking them – even within the confines of the Hilton.

There are also the issues of who’s responsible when one of Canberra’s finest overdoses? Will Katy put her hand up and say “Oops, my bad”.

Or when a guard gets stabbed with a syringe or suffers a needlestick injury – who will say “No worries champ – it’s my fault”?

The people in the Canbera jail are not there for being wonderful contributers to our community – they’re scum who should do their time, do any rehabilitation or programs that their supposed to do and then be reintegrated into the community ONLY when they are fit to do so.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Anyone who thinks that the actions of Sherrif Joe Arpaio are something to model a justice system on are either ignorant, ill informed or idiotic.

ignorant, ill-informed AND idiotic.

colourful sydney racing identity11:23 am 28 Jul 11

Proboscus said :

I found this under Operating Philosphy ACTCS – http://www.cs.act.gov.au/page/view/867

The second para states:

“Whilst they are in prison, offenders are encouraged to make use of their sentence to improve their prospects of living law abiding and useful lives on release contributing further to community safety.”

Can Katy, or one of her mob of fucktards, tell us how an NSP contributes to improving a prisoners prospects of living a law abiding and useful life?

By them not getting Hep or HIV?

Proboscus said :

Can Katy, or one of her mob of f***tards, tell us how an NSP contributes to improving a prisoners prospects of living a law abiding and useful life?

By replying I’m feeling like I’m agreeing to being a f***tard, but I will rise above your dizzying heights of rationality and eloquence.

How does NOT putting policies in place to prevent an increased risk of attracting HIV or Hepatatis increase their chances of making it in the outside world?

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Anyone who thinks that the actions of Sherrif Joe Arpaio are something to model a justice system on are either ignorant, ill informed or idiotic.

Why, because he has cut down on costs and cut through the BS that is endemic in our prison systems? I agree that some of his methods are a bit harsh, but they work!

I found this under Operating Philosphy ACTCS – http://www.cs.act.gov.au/page/view/867

The second para states:

“Whilst they are in prison, offenders are encouraged to make use of their sentence to improve their prospects of living law abiding and useful lives on release contributing further to community safety.”

Can Katy, or one of her mob of f***tards, tell us how an NSP contributes to improving a prisoners prospects of living a law abiding and useful life?

OK I’m going to show my ignorance, and I haven’t read the report to see if it answers my questions, but why doesn’t the prison conduct regular and random (or even daily) drug tests? Anyone caught with drugs in their system would be immediately isolated, treated, and subject to daily drug testing for a lengthy period thereafter. If we drug test drivers and athletes what makes prisoners so unique?

If this is already done, then I’m out of ideas as to how to stop needles and drugs getting into the prison system and, like many, I’m torn between the safety (needs) of the prison officers and the safety (needs) of all prisoners.

colourful sydney racing identity11:00 am 28 Jul 11

Watson said :

PBO said :

Prison is for punishment.

So the question is, should that punishment include a vastly increased risk of contracting HIV or Hepatitis?

Prison staff try to cover up the fact that needles do get into the prison, but it is commonly known that they do.

Instead of trying to stop the apparently instoppable, why not link access to syringe exchange to participation in drug rehabilitation programs? And addict, is an addict, is an addict. They will get their hit somehow and trying to let them go cold turkey (also as part of their punishment, no doubt) is just never going to work.

+ 1

colourful sydney racing identity10:54 am 28 Jul 11

Anyone who thinks that the actions of Sherrif Joe Arpaio are something to model a justice system on are either ignorant, ill informed or idiotic.

OK guys, you’re having a good old huff and puff, but until people wake up in the morning saying “why would I want to be a lazy public servant hitting on cute grads between planning morning tea when I can be a prison guard!” we’re going to have drugs in the prison.

Now do you want everyone going into the prison to be coming out a nest of infectious diseases or not?

PBO said :

Prison is for punishment.

So the question is, should that punishment include a vastly increased risk of contracting HIV or Hepatitis?

Prison staff try to cover up the fact that needles do get into the prison, but it is commonly known that they do.

Instead of trying to stop the apparently instoppable, why not link access to syringe exchange to participation in drug rehabilitation programs? And addict, is an addict, is an addict. They will get their hit somehow and trying to let them go cold turkey (also as part of their punishment, no doubt) is just never going to work.

PBO said :

It is meant to be a Prison, P R I S O N! Why is this even happening?

If Sherrif Joe Arpaio was here then we would have a budget excess as he would not stand for such crap. This is a prison where people are punished for crimes, not a place to score and hang out for the day.

Get rid of the needles and make them work in a chain gang, lead by example.

Its no wonder we are viewed as a joke to the other states.

Prison is for punishment.

Pull your head in Katy Gallagher, otherwise you are just as bad as Stanhope.

+1 for that.

ZERO Tolerance. Easy!

It is meant to be a Prison, P R I S O N! Why is this even happening?

If Sherrif Joe Arpaio was here then we would have a budget excess as he would not stand for such crap. This is a prison where people are punished for crimes, not a place to score and hang out for the day.

Get rid of the needles and make them work in a chain gang, lead by example.

Its no wonder we are viewed as a joke to the other states.

Prison is for punishment.

Pull your head in Katy Gallagher, otherwise you are just as bad as Stanhope.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.