by CAA | Aug 24, 2024 | Illicit Drugs, Library, Safe Injecting Rooms, Victoria Police Issues
CAA
The CAA has long promoted a similar scenario for this state, arguing that kicking those suffering substance abuse or any impairment that removes their acuity to manage themselves into the gutter and walk away is effectively what we are doing in this State and is a disgusting treatment and disrespect for human life.
The drug apologists try to falsely claim the moral high ground, claiming that Harm Minimisation saves lives. How does facilitating the pumping of some questionable drug into an addict’s veins help the addict? It may be okay for them today, but what about tomorrow?
We aggravate the situation by creating an alleged safe injecting room that does nothing to address the issues of the user. How perpetuating the adverse effect that drugs have on people by providing government support in the furtherance of their addiction or risk-taking is incomprehensible.
We can learn a lot from Ontario; they have been there and are now plotting a way back.
Ontario’s decision to close safe consumption sites near schools and daycares comes in the wake of a bystander’s death and class-action lawsuit.
By Alexandra Keeler
In a dramatic shift in policy, Ontario is closing 10 safe consumption sites located near schools and daycares, citing public safety concerns.
“Our first priority must always be protecting our communities, especially when it comes to our most innocent and vulnerable — our children,” said Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones at an Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference in Ottawa on Tuesday.
Safe consumption sites, which enable people to use illicit drugs with sterile equipment under staff supervision, will be prohibited from operating within 200 metres of schools and child-care centres after March 31, 2025.
The province also plans to introduce legislation to prevent municipalities from establishing new consumption sites, requesting the decriminalization of illegal drugs or participating in federal safe supply initiatives, a health ministry press release says.
Safe consumption sites have faced mounting scrutiny in the wake of community feedback highlighting their effect on public safety.
“We’ve noticed a real change from 2021 onwards,” Andrea Nickel, a parent who lives near a safe consumption site at Toronto’s South Riverdale Community Health Centre, told Canadian Affairs in May.
“At the beginning of last year it just escalated out of control.”
Unacceptable danger
Ontario opened its first safe consumption site in 2017 with the aim of reducing overdose deaths and providing users with a gateway to treatment. Today, there are 23 safe consumption sites across the province, 17 of which are provincially funded.
KeepSIX, the safe consumption site in South Riverdale, is among the sites facing closure. Last July, Karolina Huebner-Makurat, a local resident and mother of two, was fatally shot during a gunfight outside the site. Her death prompted Ontario to conduct two reviews of the centre and to also review the 16 other provincially funded sites.
A review of keepSIX conducted by the hospital network Unity Health Toronto and released in February recommended improvements in security, community relations, law enforcement communication and staff training. It did not recommend closure.
Drugs found by a child in the South Riverdale neighbourhood. (Photo provided by Andrea Nickel.)
The second review, released in April and conducted by former health-care executive Jill Campbell, also opposed closure. It advocated instead for expanded harm reduction and treatment, enhanced security and increased mental health support.
In March 2024, two South Riverdale residents launched a class-action lawsuit against the operator of keepSIX and all levels of government, Canadian Affairs reported in May. The lawsuit alleges the site has exposed the community to unacceptable danger.
The site’s proximity to daycares and schools and its role in exposing children to illicit drugs and used needles are at the heart of that case.
Reacting to this week’s announcement, South Riverdale parent Andrea Nickel said she is supportive of the site’s services. “[But] it is not unreasonable to ask that they are balanced with community safety, specifically kids’ safety.”
South Riverdale’s response cited the centre’s role in reversing 74 overdoses in 2023.
“Every overdose reversed is a life saved,” Anne Marie Aikins, a public affairs consultant at AMA Communications, said on behalf of the centre.
Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.
‘Devil’s in the details’
In Tuesday’s address, Ontario’s health minister also announced a $378-million investment to establish 19 new Homelessness and Addiction Recovery Treatment Hubs (HART hubs) across the province. These recovery-focused hubs will offer social support services and employment assistance to individuals struggling with addiction.
They will not provide supervised drug consumption, needle exchange programs or the “safe supply” of prescribed controlled substances.
“The devil’s in the details with these things,” said John-Paul Michael, an addictions case manager in Toronto who has extensive experience in harm reduction and lived experience with substance use.
“Everyone I know in the harm-reduction community is very much in favour of having better access to treatment, better access to detox, better wraparound care,” he said. “The problem becomes when it is at the expense of other evidence-based care.”
Michael says safe consumption sites are often the only form of health care available to individuals struggling with addiction. Eliminating them would leave these individuals without support, he says.
“Safe consumption sites are essential for saving lives, particularly for those who may never seek formal treatment,” he said. “Eliminating these supports disregards the value of human life.”
Michael is also concerned about the reduction of needle exchange services, which are crucial for managing HIV and Hepatitis C rates and lessening the burden on emergency rooms.
“Community-based nurses at [safe consumption sites] provide basic care that can prevent emergency department visits and potentially severe outcomes, such as [intensive care unit] stays,” Michael said.
The province will soon seek proposals to establish up to 10 HART hubs. Priority will be given to proposals that aim to transition existing safe consumption sites — especially those facing closure — into HART hubs.
“[T]he likelihood is that [these transitions] would happen very quickly,” Health Minister Jones told reporters on Tuesday. “The other applications — it will depend on what they bring forward.”
Linda B.
I’m not sure when the “ helping community” is going to get it through their heads that helping people stay addicted is not helping them. When addicts have their substance of choice freely available and someone to make sure they don’t die, what possible reason would they have for doing the hard work of getting clean? Users are interested in one thing above health, family, even food: the next dose.
by CAA | Aug 20, 2024 | Features, Library
The Community Advocacy Alliance Inc. (CAA) mourns the loss of their friend and colleague on 20/08/2024, Dr Raymond Shuey AM APM, PhD, R.R.S.P., B.A (Police Studies), Dip. Crim., Dip. Govt. Investigations, FAIM, FIPAAV.
Ray, a Vietnam war veteran, succumbed to his long battle with ill health while contributing to the CAA to the very end.
A former Victorian police officer and Assistant Commissioner for Traffic and Operations, Ray’s contribution to his Country and State was one of selfless devotion.
Following his retirement from the Victoria Police in 2003, Ray conducted reviews for VicRoads and the Victoria Police, as well as co-ordinating the police response to the Bushfires Royal Commission. Ray regularly consulted on road safety and police operational safety in Australia and worldwide.
Head of Strategic Safety Solutions, despite ill health, Ray was also President of the International Safety Foundation, which facilitates the international transfer of road safety and medical equipment to save lives in lower-income countries.
An inaugural member of the CAA, Ray worked tirelessly to lead our teams in the areas of road safety and domestic violence. His amazing contribution to our efforts to achieve improvements in the way these problems are dealt with by police and government are acknowledged with sincere thanks.
Rest in peace, friend and colleague. All members of the CAA are proud to have known and worked with you.
To Ray’s family and friends, the CAA offers our sincere condolences. Your loss is our loss.
by CAA | Aug 6, 2024 | Library, Victoria Police Issues
The evolution of Policing in Victoria and elsewhere has seen the introduction and division of policing function into two distinct genera. Proactive and Reactive. Prior to the 1980s, reactive policing was the norm.
When proactive policing philosophies were introduced, most police initially treated the proactive philosophy with disdain and distrust, claiming they were being made to go soft on crime; dogged police leadership prevailed.
Over a remarkably short period, in terms of policing history, the concept most derided became accepted as most thinking Police came to understand its effectiveness.
The definitions of the two theories are simplified by the National Institute of Justice in the United States,
The term “proactive policing” encompasses several methods designed to reduce crime through prevention strategies and stands in contrast to conventional “reactive” policing.
Example 1 – Proactive functions – foot patrols
Foot patrols are one of the most effective proactive strategies often maligned as old-fashioned; although if undertaken by experienced police, it has an outstanding positive effect on the community and an equally disincentive on crime.
Over the last decade or so, the effective foot patrol police appear not to have received the focus and training this policing tool deserves to maximise its effectiveness. Some police have clearly had no training in the art of foot patrol; they end up seeing it as an opportunity to stroll around engaged with their partner and not the community.
Apart from a lack of training, the ineffectiveness of competent supervision is a significant contributor.
This untrained, unsupervised approach raises the issue of Police safety. Being engaged with their partner/s dramatically diminishes the most important survival skill: situational awareness.
In the past, newly graduated police spent their initial policing on foot patrol of Melbourne CBD one-up. The only accoutrements were their baton and handcuffs, so learning situation awareness was a critical survival skill.
Whether it is two up patrols or more, as is now the norm, the public is excluded from contact as police-to-police interactions act as a barrier to public discourse and, in equal part, raises substantially the risk to the police by inattentiveness to their environment, increasing the danger of being targeted.
Whether it is a regular patrol, engaging with children in their schools, dealing with aged care issues, or interacting with community groups, allowing a spasmodic approach to develop reflects poorly on management rather than the members concerned.
The other key element of Proactive policing is consistency. So sometimes, management must ring-fence the proactive function to gain the effectiveness it can deliver.
For the most part, it responds to crime that has occurred.
Example 2 – reactive policing.
A good example is the current media dubbed ‘tobacco wars’.
There is no argument that this requires a reactive response, and that is occurring; however, the ‘wars’ have escalated to a level where, despite their best efforts, regional reactive approaches are not stemming the problem, and the demand for a more assertive and a more coordinated approach was needed.
A Task Force has been established to target the problem.
The response is appropriate in the circumstances as the problem exceeds the capacity of a proactive approach; however, the claim that this Task force-targeted approach is proactive is a misnomer.
Targeting a crime that has been committed is a reaction to the crime; therefore, this function is reactive and should not be confused with proactive.
Unfortunately, the cause of this ‘war’ has not been addressed, so the chances of police ending it are minimal at best.
The problem has evolved through the greed of successive governments, which raised tobacco excise to exorbitant levels under the guise of a health initiative.
With the loss of excise and the costs associated with the criminal activities of the black market, it is probable that the government may end up earning more income from the sum of the majority of tobacco sales at a much-reduced excise than from only a small proportion as it currently does.
From a health perspective, it is highly improbable that smoking will rise to the levels of years ago; the community has moved on from that social habit.
This would disrupt the black-market business model. Additionally, coupled with a licencing scheme for retailers to sell the product, it could sound the death knell of this criminal endeavour overnight.
Remove the profit from criminals and solve the problem.
Reluctance to implement a solution must draw our attention to who benefits, and whether corrupt practices are at play, and by whom.
From a community perspective, the concept of eudaemony is better achieved through proactive policing supported by reactive policing than the other way around.
Focus on stopping crime before it happens rather than picking up the pieces after.
The proactive model in policing theory has and always will have its detractors. The temptation for Police leaders to use proactive resources to focus on reactive functions is often too great to ignore. What they fail to understand is that proactive policing is a slow burn.
Interruptions usually set it back considerably, and the overall benefit for short-term reactive functions is questionable and lacks management foresight. The price of these interventions can be just too high and reflects poorly on the understanding of the proactive philosophy.
Piecemeal proactive activities will produce piecemeal to mediocre results. A management-focused commitment to the principle is needed for the proactive function to be effective.
In the past, every police member seeking promotion had to demonstrate their understanding and contribution to the proactive philosophy.
Those police who have been involved in Proactive policing during their careers will vehemently defend the concept, having experienced first-hand its effectiveness in reducing crime and social disorder.
When proactive policing was introduced, management found that the police’s eagerness to become involved led to many initiatives driven from the bottom up rather than those imposed from the top down. These initiatives were highly successful and contributed substantially to police welfare at the time, as they owned the programs. Blue Light Discos is a prime example. They were conceived at a local police station to become a National and International policing phenomenon.
Coincidentally, police Post-Traumatic Stress, although referred to then as just Stress, diminished compared to post-administrations that have stifled these initiatives. Read into that what you will.
Enlightened management encouraged and guided the initiatives, but sadly, two decades ago, an ill-informed and incompetent administration all but dispensed with those programmes.
We are confident that if you asked the community that police serve, they would encourage police to expand the prevention policy and prevent crime.
Proactive vs. Reactive is not an either-or proposition but an overarching police philosophy that, if managed correctly, will benefit the community and the police by delivering the services of a modern approach to law enforcement.
There is a tendency for Policing to default to the pre-1980s style of policing, a trend that must be altered.
by CAA | Jul 30, 2024 | Library, Victoria Police Issues
Magistrate Brett Sonnett, as reported in the Herald Sun, has strongly criticized the Police for charging offenders accused of serious offences on summons. This practice could potentially impact the safety and security of the public.
However, the current revolving door in relation to bail in some courts poses a far greater safety risk for the public.
His Honours blast was misplaced.
We have no knowledge of any organised stance or policy within VicPol to use summons more widely. Still, it must be remembered that the Constables’ decision in this process is exercising their Common Law right of discretion.
Police constables are not soldiers working to the beat of the Courts or anybody else’s drum, and the Courts must be more careful when challenging the right of a ‘constable of police’. Common law discretion is territory the courts may find has a sting in its tail.
The issue of bail has been contentious, with the community expressing significant concern about the courts’ interpretations. The public is disturbed by the frequent release of violent offenders on bail, to the extent that the chances of a prisoner being remanded in custody are akin to winning Tatslotto.
The most current example of a seventeen-year-old allegedly responsible for the death of a young doctor was granted bail and within hours breached the bail conditions and, then returned to court, was inexplicably granted bail yet again. Apparently, allegedly killing somebody is insufficient reason to refuse bail.
As much as some in the judiciary see the hierarchy of courts as boundaries not to be crossed, the public sees the Courts as one entity. If one jurisdiction develops unacceptable practices in the community, all court jurisdictions are tarred with the same brush.
His honour should have a good look at the performance of Magistrates and Judges relating to the bail issue across the Court system. Where there is a propensity to bail violent or other serious offenders in a high proportion of the matters before that jurisdiction, take action, and then the Police may have more confidence in bringing them before a Court by arrest.
The police’s propensity to use a Summons rather than apply to a Court for remand is a symptom of the court’s failure to read the public’s concern.
The government blames the Courts, and the Courts blame the Government, but like the Police, the Courts have discretion in interpreting the legislation.
Mr Sonnett should show more respect for the police, as they deal with these offenders and their victims on a daily basis. This contrasts with the judiciary, which only sees perpetrators in the sterile Court, and even then, the defendants are represented by their Lawyers.
The judiciary is generally shielded from the public, and they are not generally exposed to the community outrage over the bailing processes currently in vogue.
Therefore, it is inevitable that the police will continue to exercise their discretion to proceed by summons until the Court’s do not so readily bail recidivist and violent offenders.
It is clear that the Police have lost confidence in the Courts. In the collective years of experience of the former Police members of the CAA, amounting to some four hundred years, this is the first time in memory that the Courts, by their actions, have caused Police to lose confidence, not so much in individual Judicial officers, but in the broader court function.
The police’s lack of trust in the Courts reflects the community’s attitude as a whole; the police are just opening the window.
Mr Sonnett could do well directing his energy toward rebuilding the long-term trust the Police used to have in the Courts; repairing that will go a long way to rebuilding community trust.
The current media discussion of placing cameras in all courtrooms to remove the judiciary’s anonymity and create accountability for their work has some merit.
Letting the light in is sometimes the best sanitiser.
by CAA | Jul 27, 2024 | Library, Youth
Pic courtesy Herald Sun
To say the CAA has deep concerns about this Bill and the adverse impact it will have on youth crime in this state is a gross understatement.
What is generally not well understood is that this Bill is ‘the foot in the door’ for further introducing the concept of ‘Restorative Justice’, a monumental change in how Justice is dispensed in this State.
Significant changes included in this Bill include the plethora of conferences and committees required to manage each offender instead of the concept of punishment and accountability, which has been whitewashed out of this Bill.
Effectively, a child can take a position where they will not comply with any processes available to the Courts or any other authorities under this Bill, and nothing can be done about it. No punishment can be applied, regardless of the child’s actions.
We suspect that the majority of the community and many politicians do not understand the consequences this Bill will generate, none of them good.
Why wasn’t the community advised of this change? We are unaware of where the Government of the day achieved a mandate for such a severe and monumental change to the principles of Justice.
It took five years to draft, underscoring the difficulty and, given the outcome, incompetence displayed in the principles that have evolved to form this Bill.
They all will continue to stoke crime, not diminish it.
A fable best describes this Bill;
‘A committee was formed to design a Horse ( the Bill to Reform Youth Justice), but they came up with a camel ( no ordinary Camel but a two-humped Bactrian Camel with three legs).’
With all the effort of five years, the Bill as presented does not address the issue the community now faces and is riddled with extreme socialist ideology and drafted by a committee that has no understanding of the people they are supposed to be protecting. It will feed the crime wave.
The Bill misses the mark by a long way.
Central to the flaw in this Bill is the assumption that children under thirteen (13) cannot form criminal intent.
This assumption isn’t based on any empirical data and flies in the face of the reality of the evolution of human development.
Over the last two decades, the development of young people has accelerated faster than any other preceding era.
The speed at which this has occurred is most evident in the last ten years when evolution achieved warp speed, driven by two significant factors: Nutrition and Technology.
The ‘canary in the coal mine’, generally ignored, has been the accelerated crime rate by Juveniles and the failure to recognise the changes that were occurring in front of us all.
Nutrition
The impact of a higher level of nutrition in recent times must be seen as positive as young people will probably grow up healthier than their predecessors, but with that nutrition comes increased physical development. It’s not an issue until you realise that young people, on average, are taller and better developed physically than their predecessors. A phenomenon that immature minds can and do exploit.
Technology
There can be no argument that the development of technology has and continues to accelerate at warp speed and that the young people born in this era are the ones that maximise its use. They are more connected and have access to more data than previous generations ever dreamed of. This massive influx of good and bad information has developed young people’s mental acuity well beyond the perceived norm.
Still, they lack the ability and maturity to process and analyse this data effectively, leading them to emulate others without understanding the consequences or ignoring the consequences because there are none.
These phenomena point to the main flaw in the Bill and the poor consideration of youth development, both physically and mentally, in its drafting.
Today, a 10 – 12-year-old is the equivalent of a 13–15-year-old ten years ago.
The Bill is headed in the wrong direction and should instead be lowering the age of criminal responsibility, not lifting it.
Lowering the age to 8-10 years old will allow young people who are developing into and headed toward crime, the ability for effective early intervention, not waiting until they are older and more entrenched in crime.
Early intervention will reduce crime and improve the chances of young people developing without the stigma of exposure to Legal processes.
Why do we have to wait until a young person starts to climb the hierarchy of crime before any action is taken?
The Bill is not about Youth and crime. Its only function is to divert young people away from the judicial system with no attempt to distract them from crime before they get involved or turn them away from committing further crimes.
Of great concern to the CAA is that the Bill leans heavily on the ideologically experimental concept of Restorative Justice that, even relying on questionable research, raises significant concerns about its efficacy.
Not only does the concept have a questionable ability to influence crime reduction, but it is also extremely cumbersome. It would be costly to initiate its recommended functions in this Bill, requiring a department to administer this part alone for questionable outcome benefits. The failure of Restorative Justice benefits vested interests, not the community.
The things that Bill aims to,
- Promote the broader use of the failed socialist dream of Restorative Justice, a concept of unrealistic goals that lack credibility, and research to support its efficacy. This Social experiment has already failed to live up to its hype. A concept requiring vast administrative support (and funding) for little or any identifiable valuable outcomes for the community.
- Allow a child to ignore the ten processes created by this Bill without consequences, ensuring the ineffective and wasted time and resources. All talk, no action.
- The CAA notes that the Bill requires the child’s consent for almost all interventions, which empowers the child to avoid any undesirable consequences of their actions.
- It will necessitate a considerable increase in the public service to cope with the massive increase in data management and processes this Bill creates.
- There will be an unrealistic load put on an already stretched Police Force to achieve compliance. (Taking police off the road to be administrators rather than being on patrol to reduce crime.)
- It will increase the severity and frequency of crime not only in the youth area but overall, as younger children coached by older criminals are encouraged to commit crimes as there are no consequences. (No offences for coaching children into crime in the Bill -most of those who coach will be children themselves)
The unintended consequences of the Bill are substantial and mirror the unintended consequences (fatal) of the Public Order Bill that removed the power of Police to intervene in public drunkenness.
The Bill fails;
- To hold children to age-appropriate accountabilities and consequences. It erases accountability and accountability as the basis of a deterrent.
- The bill intimidates the judiciary from imposing custodial consequences when a child continues ignoring the lectures and threats made by judicial officers or breaches Bail.
- By not referring to Prevention as a legitimate function and requirement to avoid children entering the Justice system, this document only has effect when the child has offended It’s then too late.
- No Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for any participants delivering the Bill.
- No provision for research.
- There is no clear direction as to who is responsible for the Bill’s application and coordination of service providers. The proposed Commissioner couldn’t cope with this function without a huge staff.
- What do the Service Providers do, and how are they assessed?
More specifically, our concerns relate to;
- Addressing the Drug issue with children in either use or participation in the trade. The recidivist juvenile is the addict of tomorrow.
- Lack of accountability of Parents – sanctions for parental failure.
We have identified the basis of this Bill, and it has, as we suggest, little to do with Youth or, more specifically, their criminal activity and how that might be prevented in the first place.
The concept of prevention before they commit a crime has been overlooked entirely, as the intent, in our view, is to write much of the Restorative Justice Philosophy that can be achieved, into legislation.
Giving this untested experimental concept the credibility of forming the basis of this Bill and using this Bill to provide status to this concept by using our children as pawns is unconscionable.
The Government is now looking to fast-track this Bill under the guise of addressing the current crime Tsunami.
New South Wales addressed the Recidivist Youth issue with a few minor changes to the wording relating to Youth Bail provisions.
Assessing their strategy, they are dealing with the issue from the juvenile perspective, not some ideological dream.
The youths are being remanded in custody, and that is punishment in the child’s mind and will act as a bigger deterrent than all the conferences that can be dreamt up.
This Bill needs to be stopped until proper analysis, and strategy can be developed – one that will work.
by CAA | Jul 25, 2024 | Illicit Drugs, Library
An insightful article and video from our partners, the Dalgarno Institute.
The video is of an interview between Andy, a recovered Ice addict and Shane Varcoe, the CEO of the Dalgano Institute. Although this interview was done in 2015, it is perhaps more relevant today and gives an insight into the wrong-headed thinking of the so-called experts who advise the government on drug-related issues. Andy’s experience should motivate all clear thinkers that new and informed approach must be adopted .
You are sure to be surprised at the issues that Andy exposes – CAA
WRD NEWS
Andy’s Journey: From Ice Addiction to Recovery
July 24, 2024By WRD News Team
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Andy’s story is a powerful testament to the challenges of ice addiction and the complexities of the recovery process. His journey, as shared in a candid interview, offers valuable insights into the realities of drug use, rehabilitation, and the systemic issues within current drug policies.
Early Beginnings
Andy’s relationship with substances began in his teenage years, starting with alcohol at age 13. While marijuana didn’t become a significant part of his life, alcohol remained a constant until he graduated from university in 2004. Following a period of sobriety, Andy’s life took a turn when his business failed and his mother fell ill.
The Descent into Ice Addiction
Struggling with depression and worry, Andy first tried ice (crystal methamphetamine) as a way to cope. The initial experience provided energy and alertness, seemingly alleviating his concerns. However, his mother’s tragic passing due to medical complications became the catalyst for increased drug use. Andy’s habit escalated rapidly, reaching consumption levels of up to 1.7 grams daily.
Andy’s addiction led to multiple arrests and periods of incarceration. His experiences in custody, particularly during the smoking riots at Melbourne Remand Centre, proved to be a turning point. The inhumane conditions and prolonged period without drugs forced Andy to confront his addiction.
The Rehabilitation Journey
Andy’s path to recovery involved participation in drug court programs and various rehabilitation efforts. He highlights the importance of drug courts in providing support but also notes the challenges within the system. Andy’s experiences shed light on the complexities of recovery, including the risk of relapse and the impact of triggers.
Insights on Current Drug Policies
Andy offers critical perspectives on current drug policies and rehabilitation programs:
- Inconsistencies in messaging: He points out the conflicting messages between legal stance and harm reduction approaches.
- Problematic rehabilitation strategies: Andy discusses how certain programs, intended to help, can sometimes trigger cravings or relapses.
- The need for improved in-custody programs: He emphasises the potential for effective rehabilitation during incarceration, if more comprehensive programs were available.
- Criticism of proposed solutions: Andy expresses scepticism about initiatives like ice smoking rooms, highlighting the potential negative impacts on recovering addicts and the broader community.
Andy’s story underscores several key points:
- The importance of addressing underlying issues in addiction treatment
- The need for consistent messaging in drug policies
- The potential of incarceration as a rehabilitation opportunity, if properly structured
- The challenges faced by recovering addicts in maintaining sobriety, especially when confronted with triggers or old associates
Andy’s candid sharing of his experiences provides invaluable insights into the world of ice addiction and recovery. To gain a deeper understanding of his journey and the issues he raises, readers are encouraged to watch the full YouTube video here.
by CAA | Jul 23, 2024 | Illicit Drugs, Library, Safe Injecting Rooms
Another insightful article from ‘Break the Needle’. The Canadian experiences with Illicit drugs seem to precede the experiences here in Victoria as the government has guided us towards the first step in a broader application of the ‘Safe Suppy’ slide with the introduction of Pill testing. With similar advocates in Victoria promoting drug proliferation, having access to the Canadian experiences gives Victoria a head start to alter course and impact the toll that drugs are taking on our predominantly younger generation.
Drug facilitation by governments all have one thing in common: they increase the use of illegal narcotics, and there is never any evidence that the addiction diminishes, but rather younger people enter the drug dependence regime convinced that because it is government-sanctioned, it must be safe.
This article highlights how drug apologists inject emotive words into their rhetoric, like the use of ‘fake news’, ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ to further promote the use of illicit drugs. – CAA
Claims about ‘safer supply’ diversion aren’t disinformation
This month, police in London, Ont., admitted to what critics have said all along: safer supply diversion is happening at alarming levels
Break The Needle
and
Sabrina Maddeaux
Jul 23, 2024
By Sabrina Maddeaux
Last spring, Canada’s minister of mental health and addictions claimed critics’ concerns about “safer supply” diversion — the illegal selling and trading of taxpayer-funded addictive drugs — were based on lies.
“For Pierre Poilievre to state untrue information about safer supply, and try to create barriers to accessing harm reduction services that are saving lives amid this ongoing crisis, is incredibly irresponsible and dehumanizing to people who use drugs,” read a statement by then-minister Carolyn Bennett’s office.
Fast forward a year, and it’s clear which side was telling the truth.
This month, police in London, Ont., admitted to what critics said all along: diversion of pharmaceutically supplied opioids to the streets is happening at alarming levels. London is home to Canada’s longest-running safer supply program, which dates back to 2016 and was significantly expanded in 2020.
The London Police Service released data that shows a staggering 3,000 per cent increase in the seizure of hydromorphone tablets — the opioid predominantly given out by safer supply programs — over the last five years. In 2019, London police seized just under 1,000 tablets. By 2020, that number had tripled. In 2023, they seized 30,000 hydromorphone tablets.
For context, hydromorphone is as potent as heroin and just two or three of these pills, if snorted, can cause an overdose in an inexperienced opioid user.
Earlier this month, the city’s deputy police chief, Paul Bastien, told CBC’s London Morning, “We recognize the value that safe supply plays as part of that harm reduction piece, but diversion is an important issue that is affecting community safety. I won’t say that everyone’s doing it, but some of the tablets from safe supply are being diverted for that purpose.”
“Criminal groups are fairly adept at exploiting policy changes that are well intended. But unforeseen consequences sometimes arise and this appears to be, at least in part, one of them,” he continued.
A reasonable person may assume that, given this alarming new evidence, proponents of safer supply would change their tune about widespread diversion being “fake news.” Unfortunately, they haven’t.
Some activists are now claiming on social media that London’s spike in hydromorphone seizures was not caused by safer supply, but rather by a high-profile theft of 245,000 hydromorphone tablets from an Ontario pharmacy. Yet the spike in seizures began years before this theft and, according to multiple addiction physicians, the street price of hydromorphone collapsed in the city well before 2023, suggesting an earlier influx of diverted supply.
However, these mental contortions aren’t surprising. As more and more evidence of widespread diversion emerged over the past year, accusations of disinformation and misinformation haven’t stopped –– they have simply evolved. The narrative changed from “Diversion doesn’t exist” to “Fine, it exists, but only on a small scale” to, now, “Fine, diversion exists at scale, but imagine the alternative?”
This is the angle already emerging in British Columbia, where the province’s top doctor, Bonnie Henry, authored a damning report that acknowledges the regularity and harms of safer supply diversion, yet still concludes safer supply is “ethically defensible” and advocates for its expansion.
Like many safer supply activists, Henry often argues diversion isn’t a significant concern because most opioid deaths are caused by fentanyl.
While it’s true that most opioid deaths are attributable to fentanyl, hydromorphone is still incredibly dangerous. When diverted into the black market, it creates new addictions, often among young people, which culminate in fentanyl use.
Moreover, data indicate hydromorphone is implicated in an increasing share of drug-related deaths in young people in B.C. In 2019, there were no reported deaths involving hydromorphone. By 2022, that number jumped to 22 per cent. Similarly, a recent report by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Ontario found the number of youth in the province who self-reported using prescription opioids for “non-medical” reasons jumped 71 per cent between 2021 and 2023.
Still, safer supply activists continue to insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that widespread diversion isn’t happening.
In 2017, Collins Dictionary declared “fake news” the word of the year. Since then, the term –– along with sister terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” –– have taken on a disturbing new life.
While fake news, misinformation and disinformation are very real democratic threats, some politicians and activists realized they could delegitimize opponents’ arguments and unflattering media stories by simply proclaiming them fake. Now, we’re in the dizzyingly ironic position of real news, and real facts, being dismissed as misinfo and disinfo by self-declared guardians of the truth.
This is the exact problem journalists and concerned medical professionals continue to face when raising the alarm on so-called “safer supply.” Despite the abundance of solid reporting, emerging data, whistleblower warnings and first-hand accounts of widespread diversion, harm reduction activists and their allies in government don’t just recklessly dismiss the problem, they weaponize the language of fake news to discredit a reality they don’t like.
Communities across Canada, and addicts themselves, deserve better.
by CAA | Jul 22, 2024 | Library, Victoria Police Issues, Youth
Pic. Courtesy Herald Sun
The community is tired of this continual waffle about getting tough on Youth crime. They want action, not words.
As victims accumulate at an alarming rate and the youth cohort becomes more violent and brash, the government’s rhetoric becomes more hollow and meaningless.
How many times do we hear that there is no problem, it is just a small cohort, or we have the lowest youth crime figures in Australia only to be told the next day that the independent Crime Statistics Agency has debunked the government claims?
Yet again, this headline – appeared in the Herald Sun on July 21, 2024
ALLAN GOVT SET TO STRENGTHEN VICTORIA’S YOUTH BAIL LAWS IN A CRACKDOWN ON CRIME
Suggesting that the government is dithering would perhaps be an understatement because the changes they are considering will be to the Youth Justice Bill before Parliament.
If passed, this Bill, some 900 pages long, will make the current situation look benign. Yong people will have no barriers or accountability to control their criminal behaviour.
Astoundingly, the drafting of this Bill took five years: five years to rewrite the laws regarding youth offenders and five years to mess it up completely.
The CAA has examined the Bill and were shocked at its ineptitude, particularly,
- not one reference in the 900 pages to any effort or strategy to avoid children becoming involved in crime in the first place,
- a focus solely on diverting children from the legal system no matter what they do,
- victims only received very scant references and no consideration,
- children are treated like disposable commodities as there is no mention of protecting a child for themselves, a concept too difficult for the architects of the Bill to contemplate,
- the real kicker was the complete avoidance of any reference to accountability by young offenders.
This Bill is so bad that our critique ran to ten pages,
The bill also lifts the age of criminal responsibility, initially to twelve and later fourteen, currently ten years. This alone makes the bill a joke as while the ideological dreamers may hold sway over the government, the Crime Statistics Agency has children aged 10 or 11 years old recording a 52.6 per cent spike in the number of offences committed, and they want to make those offences go away by classifying those perpetrators as exempt from prosecution.
The age changes may help the shocking statistics but won’t help the children or the victims, but neither of them matters much when statistics are under pressure. One result that can be guaranteed is that the number of victims will increase exponentially.
Try and explain this drivel to a victim of weapon-wielding children in this age bracket or explain why there was no intervention of the younger children to steer them away from further crime. By age thirteen, their behaviour will be entrenched and nearly impossible to divert.
To aggravate the incompetence, the government proposes legislating the Police Cautioning Program, which has successfully diverted thousands of children from its inception many decades ago.
This program is arguably the most effective mechanism developed to divert young people from crime, but being good makes it a target.
The proven adage of ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ should apply.
by CAA | Jul 16, 2024 | Drunk, Family Violence, Library, Road Safety, Victoria Police Issues
Police arrest the thieves, and courts release them. There has to be a better way.
That way is what the CAA calls the G-Tag (Electronic Vehicle tracking).
If the Government won’t bring the Courts into line to do their job, then the community will have to take action.
Every day, we are told of yet another shocking crime or string of crimes to which a Motor car is central, but the government sits on its hands and takes no action apart from the odd manipulation of statistics to deflect criticism.
First and foremost, the judiciary has failed, and its role now must be evaluated based on the ineffectiveness of its penalties by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
The Key indicator is the primary function of a sentence: general deterrence. However, this has been lost in the mire of so-called diversions, few of which divert the offenders from more crime.
If a judicial officer’s adjudication is below a benchmark performance (KPI), and particularly if the sentencing fails to achieve the primary objective of deterring others, then they need to explain their failure, and where that failure is consistent, they should be removed from the bench.
The reality is that if the circa 20,000 cars and other vehicles that are stolen annually and used by criminals were made unusable for their criminal activities, the theft of cars would drop dramatically, and with it, the crime the vehicles facilitate.
There would not only be a massive crime drop but also a massive impact on car owners’ safety and reduced cost, as the dramatic drop in Victorian fleet thefts would force insurers to lower premiums as the risk factors diminish.
The Courts have failed to reign in crime and blame the government, which, in turn, accuses the Courts.
Additionally, the Government has been made aware of an alternate plan since 2016 but considers the plan not even worthy of discussing with the CAA.
The problem with the plan we agree, challenges the status quo, but the status quo doesn’t help the thousands of victims; the G-Tag will.
See,
https://caainc.org.au/g-tag-a-new-paradigm-in-community-safety
https://caainc.org.au/?s=G-Tag
There is, however, an alternate option: bypassing the government.
The alternative is providing the private sector with the opportunity to implement the G-Tag.
A subscription service to protect vehicles would be cost-effective for owners who could offset some of the cost with reduced premiums from insurers and provide a disabling capacity for vehicles if they are stolen, which could be a viable alternative to waiting for the government.
The money this would save the State purse by reducing crime and processing criminals would justify some relief for those who subscribe to the G-Tag service.
The security industry already operates control rooms that monitor security equipment, and some companies monitor the movement of ankle bracelets, so providing a G-Tag service would not be a significant technological step.
Although technology is unlikely to stop a vehicle from being stolen as soon as the owner is aware, the car can be disabled, making it useless for the crooks.
Most high-end vehicles already have the technology built-in, and other vehicles are relatively cheap to equip.
The disruption to the crook’s plans would deter them from stealing any vehicle with a G-Tag sticker on the window.
The G-Tag can put a vehicle into ‘limp home mode’, reducing its maximum speed to 80 KPH, and then disable the engine when it is safe.
The police can be notified of the incident and organise an interception coordinated with the use of the vehicle’s disabling capacity.
One distinct advantage is that thieves are unlikely to have the opportunity to torch the vehicle, destroying evidence.
A negotiation with the E-Tag operators could make this concept more viable.
It is a big challenge; however, if we wait for the government, it will never happen, and the crooks will continue to operate with gay abandon, and victims will continue to be put at risk because of government inaction.
Whether you are an Uber Driver or a Mum on the school run, we must lift their protection.
The CAA calls on entrepreneurial businesses who might be interested in exploring this concept to contact us at info@caainc.org.au
by CAA | Jul 10, 2024 | Library, Youth
(‘Whack-a-Mole’ is a 1970s arcade-style game that lives up to its name. It consists of Moles popping up out of their burrows randomly and the players trying to wack them with a mallet.)
At a time when the youth crisis is in an out-of-control spiral, irrespective of how the government tries to spin the problem, the Government is using the police force in a futile effort to resolve the issue by forcing them to play ‘Wack-A-Mole‘
Additionally, the government trumpets action, which turns out to be inaction, that the community is supposed to accept, but it is all smoke and mirrors with no clear strategy.
The problem that we face with young people and crime, in general, is that nobody is doing anything about reducing crime before it occurs. They would rather play ‘Wack-a-Mol’,
As reported in the Herald Sun,
- Vehicle thefts have jumped by 25% to 40000.
- 59,000 motorists had valuables stolen from their vehicles.
And the advice for drivers was to lock their cars and hide valuables – the victim’s fault.
These statistics become more concerning yearly – more offences, more victims.
This crime is shared between opportunistic drug addicts to fund their addiction and juveniles out for ‘the thrill’. The crime surge is the fault of weak legislation and poor strategies to combat crime. Blaming the victim is unforgivable.
But never fear. The government has spent five years drafting a new Youth Justice Bill to address the current anomalies in the Judicial system.
The Bill, if enacted in its present form, will add to the crime problem, not diminish it, as its sole focus is diverting young people from the Justice system after they offend, and its 900 pages do not mention once, what can be done with younger children, to divert them from crime. However, it expends a lot of words to remove concepts of accountability and consequences from all young offenders.
It also lifts the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years from 10 years, an ideological whim not only contradicts the empirical evidence published by government agencies but expends no energy on how these children in that underage cohort who commit crimes will be dealt with.
‘Alarming statistics released in June found crimes involving children as young as ten had soared to their highest level since 2010, with a 52.6 per cent spike in offences committed by ten and 11-year-olds.
Children aged 10 to 13 years old were responsible for 84 aggravated burglaries, while those aged 14 to 17 were considered to be “over-represented” in burglaries, assaults, robberies and car thefts – HS 10.7.2024
A cynic may suggest that the statistics don’t show children younger than 10 committing crimes because they are below the legislated age of criminal intent. That cohort will show a 100% decline in children aged 10 and 11 committing crimes when the age is lifted.
Will the government exploit this statistical foible to pretend they’re solving the problem? Doubtless, they will.
With contributions like ‘dob in a mate’ the latest government offering, all we can say is, ‘good luck with that’. However, it points to the disconnect between the government and its advisers and the real world.
The reality is that Police and the community will just have to wait until a perpetrator turns 13 before their criminal endeavours can perhaps be curtailed. On occasions, police in the past have had to wait until a child turns ten before they can be presented to the judicial system to curb their criminal behaviour.
These arbitrary age limits do not necessarily coincide with the child’s acuity development or when a child is acting in concert with others who may be older in the commission of crimes.
They must be scrapped.
Of course, being charged is only part of the problem. The main issues are,
The failure of the Bail Laws, which the Courts say is not their fault but the legislators, is the lamest excuse ever hidden behind, a weak excuse and entirely accurate.
- Failure to hold children to account for their actions.
If criminal behaviour does not have consequences, what motivation exists to change children’s behaviour – talk fests and meetings don’t cut it.
- Failure to apply sanctions for criminality.
The law is based, in part, on a fear (Deterrent factor) that certain unacceptable behaviours attract sanctions imposed by a Court, but illogically, this concept is removed from children, which is a significant part of the problem as they seldom suffer any accurate or effective sanctions.
The future for the children is not looking good; by the time their unlawful behaviour is checked, crime is entrenched in their psyche or soul, and the chances of rehabilitation are problematic.
Easy bail is only one of the many illogical approaches the government has persisted with, as, for example, the most recent absconding of a juvenile bailed on charges of culpable driving causing death after a stolen car he was allegedly driving ploughed into another vehicle, killing the occupant.
The perpetrator absconded within hours of being bailed, and the real fear is that he was behind the wheel of another stolen car. Now in custody, what he did for the three days on the run will no doubt be exposed in due course.
In this matter, the government and the courts have blood on their hands, but will that be enough to have them wake up and do their job in the community’s best interests?
The CAA calls on the government to act before more innocent lives are lost.
- Immediately amend the Bail Act to unshackle the Courts (who will then have no excuse) and follow the New South Wales model of liberalising the ability of the courts to reject applications for the privilege of Bail in appropriate cases.
- Immediately reinstate the offence of breach of bail conditions.
- Immediately abandon the notion of lifting the age for criminal intent. All children develop at different stages; therefore, the age is somewhat irrelevant anyway, and all ages should be removed instead, relying on the common law principle of doli incapaxa, a Latin phrase meaning “incapable of evil”, a defence available to all children. children under 14 years.
- Immediately develop proactive initiatives that divert young people from crime before offending rather than relying on diversion programs after offending.
- Immediately abandon the flawed Youth Justice Bill, which, if enacted, will increase the crime rate.
The ball is now squarely in the Government’s court, and a failure to act as outlined will condemn this government forever.
