Drug report criticised

[DownUnderDoper]

http://www2.skynews.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=189512

 

Drug report criticised

Updated: 10:22, Friday September 14, 2007

 

Anti-drug campaigners have slammed the recommendation of a parliamentary inquiry which suggests children should be taken away from drug-addicted parents forever.

 

After a seven month Parliamentary inquiry into the impact of drug use on families, a Liberal-led committee has suggested young children should be adopted out.

 

The controversial recommendations also include compulsory treatment for teenage addicts and restrictions on methadone programs.

 

Labor members of the committee have presented a dissenting report, saying drug addiction is a more complex issue than their Liberal colleagues have reflected.

 

The report has also been criticised by people who try and help drug addicts break the habit.

 

Dr Alex Wodak from Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital's Alcohol and Drug Service has labelled the report frightening.

 

Un - Fucking - Believable

 

We have got to do something about this!

[godonacid]

not realy, i sort of agree on bits of the proposal, they are talking in general junkies who have been through rehab that many times, the idea is to give the children some sort of normal life rather than have them in and out of protective custody and foster homes, children who go through foster homes and such are lacking stability in their lives from which all aspect of their lives suffer from, i know speed junkies who should have had their children taken from them by now, 1 did her mother stepped in and took the child.

 

as with every thing to do with this election the media have hyped up parts of the story with out telling the whole story, while this will not work in every case it was / has never been intended for every case only those where it is applicable, some people use these drugs and there kids never know / never have any problems from it, others will get paid have a hit of smack and the kid is left to fend for them selves, the reports they where using as an example one kid got caught looking thorugh the bins at school because her mum blew all the cash on drugs and the kid has no food while mum is passed out on the floor at home, another kid had had multiple broken bones and mega malnourishment by the age of 3.

 

like i said this wont work for every case but wont be used in every case, and i highly doubt and one here will have to worry about it, they are talking drugs of dependence and extreme cases only, any how thats my 2 cents worth.

[Luke Skywalker]

The question is who decides whether you're a problem or not, (probably community services which haven't got a brilliant record on child safety/help) and will they apply the same test to alcohol?

 

I think not....

 

It's a bit of bluster IMHO, all easily forgotten until after the election. And I hope to heck we don't end up with a bronwyn bishop run drugs policy, because if we did, we'd all be shot.

[WantDaChronic]

i believe that if your drug addiction is causing harm to your children you should either quit the drugs or have the kids taken away from you, but if your drug addiction has no effect on your children, eg. they have food, clothing, shelter, etc. then there shouldnt be any problems with the children staying with the parents...

[Al B. Fuct]

FAMILIES AFFECTED FAMILIES APPALLED BY NEW REPORT ON DRUGS AND FAMILIES

 

Family Drug Support founder and CEO Tony Trimingham expressed extreme disappointment at the report of the ‘Impact of illicit drugs of families’ tabled in Parliament today. Mr Trimingham said today – ‘Despite overwhelming evidence from over 130 of the 188 submissions, including 40 from Family Drug Support members favouring a continuation and strengthening of Australia’s current Harm Minimisation strategy, the committee has ignored the pleas of these families and produced a political report that favours more of failed strategies that marginalise, alienate and stigmatise drug users and their families.

 

Making it clear that Family Drug Support does not condone or support drug use and abuse, Mr Trimingham went on to say “This committee and particularly its chair, has been biased from the start. Bronwyn Bishop and others have repeatedly made statements of opinions through out hearings, has been sympathetic to those who favour tough stances and been offensive to those who look to evidence and reality in their evidence”.

 

Mr Trimingham noted that ALP committee members noted this political bias and wrote a dissenting report but is disappointed that they did not reject some of the 31 outrageous recommendations.

 

“If this report is implemented then we will see more disease, crime and death – this would be the biggest step backwards and families will suffer”.

 

Tony Trimingham OAM

Family Drug Support

PO box 7363

Leura NSW 2780

Tel: 02 4782 9222

Mob: 0412 414 444

[Al B. Fuct]

If you have some time on your hands, try to wade through this Hansard transcript of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services sham inquiry into the 'impact of illicit drug use on families.'

 

It was this hearing in the main which produced this foolish report with its unworkable, authoritarian recommendations. The report essentially says throw 'em in jail and take their kids away. Yep, that'll fix 'em right up.

 

Bronwyn Bishop, the incredibly zero-tolerance biased chair of the committee that produced this ridiculous report treats Dr Alex Wodak like a junkie.

 

If you want to do something about this- just don't vote the Libs back in.

[DownUnderDoper]

not realy, i sort of agree on bits of the proposal, they are talking in general junkies who have been through rehab that many times, the idea is to give the children some sort of normal life rather than have them in and out of protective custody and foster homes, children who go through foster homes and such are lacking stability in their lives from which all aspect of their lives suffer from, i know speed junkies who should have had their children taken from them by now, 1 did her mother stepped in and took the child.

 

as with every thing to do with this election the media have hyped up parts of the story with out telling the whole story, while this will not work in every case it was / has never been intended for every case only those where it is applicable, some people use these drugs and there kids never know / never have any problems from it, others will get paid have a hit of smack and the kid is left to fend for them selves, the reports they where using as an example one kid got caught looking thorugh the bins at school because her mum blew all the cash on drugs and the kid has no food while mum is passed out on the floor at home, another kid had had multiple broken bones and mega malnourishment by the age of 3.

 

like i said this wont work for every case but wont be used in every case, and i highly doubt and one here will have to worry about it, they are talking drugs of dependence and extreme cases only, any how thats my 2 cents worth.

 

There are already laws in place to allow children to be taken from abusive or negligent parents, why the need to legislate specifically for drug addicts? This law assumes automatically if you are an addict you are an unfit parent.

 

The question is who decides whether you're a problem or not, (probably community services which haven't got a brilliant record on child safety/help) and will they apply the same test to alcohol?

 

I think not....

 

It's a bit of bluster IMHO, all easily forgotten until after the election. And I hope to heck we don't end up with a bronwyn bishop run drugs policy, because if we did, we'd all be shot.

 

Exactly Luke and where to next?

 

Parents who smoke cigarettes in their homes?

 

How about parents who feed their kids junk food?

 

How about workaholic parents who don't have the time to look after their kids?

 

I'm sure the politicians that suggested the last round of arbitrary child removal thought they were doing the best for the children as well... Perhaps this stolen generation will feel differently when they grow up?

[pipeman]

In the protection of individual liberty, I think its important to focus on cause and effect when looking at law enforcement and policing. What I mean by that is the law should be used as a tool to deal with identified problems, it shouldn't be used as an absolute truth within itself.

 

So when it comes to the question of drug addicted parents, I think the decision regarding the children should only be considered if there is something to suggest neglect. Like if kids were getting neglected or abused and on investigation it was found the parents were junkies then yeah that might be grounds to do something drastic. But on the other hand if the police come across an otherwise normal family, where the kids seem to be OK, but the parents are hopeless drug addicts, well IMO it would be a moral crime to take those kids away.