CONCERN REGARDING BEYOND 2008 NGO FORUM PROCEDURE AND REPRESENTATION

“Members of the International Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy attending the Beyond 2008 NGO Forum applaud the efforts and enterprise of the organisers of this event.

However, if we as a forum of NGOs purport to speak for the world’s NGOs, we must have necessarily, from the beginning, used a different process of representation to this forum than the process that has been used.

The stated starting assumption of this forum was that it represent a ‘balance’ of NGO ideological outlook and engagement. This is very different to a democratic model in which the weight of representation in this room regarding drug policy would closely equate to the surveyed weight of NGO opinion on various issues back home.

Such an alternate democratic model of representation would require that:

Every relevant NGO, not just a selection of NGOs, be invited to provide input through a transparent survey process. In Australia just 142 of more than 300 NGOs were invited to do the original survey
This survey would extensively survey the weight of the varying drug policy opinions between NGOs and quantify responses. There was no quantification of response in our Australian consultation process
Once responses to the survey were quantified, representation to this forum would then be chosen to reflect the outcomes. Our Australian representation was chosen on the basis of who could afford to attend (evidence attached) and not in parity to any quantification of varying views.

Without the very necessary quantification of views, there is a less than transparent process for choosing representatives. A thoroughly democratic process would have yielded a representation where all contentious issues could have been quickly solved by a vote, and a majority voice recorded. This is not to deny that our processes here have not been without value.

Alternately, this forum’s assumption of a balanced ideological representation allows certain perspectives to punch above their weight in the achievement of consensus if, for instance, the real NGO community back home votes 70/30 on that issue. Our concern is that representation according to an artificial imposition of balance, rather than democratic representation, would likely have yielded different recorded outcomes on some of the more contentious issues before this forum.”

posted by Drug Free Australia Secretary, Gary Christian

This theme [or perhaps meme] is identical where it pops up. As HR is an underfunded third of HM, we must ask what’s wrong with Supply and Demand Reduction, in the mind of Abstentionists. HM is blamed for present problems: the failure of SR and DR. This is quite wrong, but when policy can be blamed for behaviour, ministerial energy wasted banning ‘bongs’ and educational pamphlets pulled over moral panic, we must take note.

Much of what we hear from DFA and the anti HM camp is based in fear, ignorance and denial. It’s also important to respect it. Open discourse demands we ask others to challenge strongly held beliefs, and for some this can’t be rationalised. In a bizarre ‘about face’ for the Tough Love approach, it is those who favour abstinence who now need a firm but understanding guide toward reality.

The reason we see semantics like “Demand Prevention” as covers for zero tolerance is because HM by definition - including Demand Reduction - hints at the reality of drug use. The psychology at play here is important. DR exists only due to what abstentionists deem an inherent failure. One they are convinced they can master - the desire to use illicit drugs. Reducing demand is not enough. It must be prevented such that opportunity to use is impossible.

We had “pushers” before HM for the same reason: “Our loved one would never take illegal drugs, break the law or sin. This means a failure for us as a family, parents, siblings and moral beings… “. Ergo, some lurking stranger “made them do it” - or in the light of evidence - a policy causes this. We’d do the potential for a democratic leap for a misunderstood minority an injustice to ignore this.

DFA frequently cite levels of use and seized quantities as proof of the “why bother” approach of HM. In fact, these represent a failure of law enforcement and the reality of demand. Desiring the former and denying the latter, abstentionists have no alternative than to attack HR - or rather, the signifiers.

MMT ‘causes/prolongs addiction, causes aging’. NSP’s promote use and BBV spread. “Testing is better prevention”. The MSIC is not wanted by “most Australians”. Education and “3 strikes” send “the wrong message”. Allowing “addiction” to continue is defeatist and defeating the aim of rehab’ itself, etc…

Any serious attempt to remove HM [actually an increase in HR] must undermine the basis for the policy in total. This has advanced to the point of supposedly self evidently successful approaches now advanced on the basis of being “non HM”. This is clearly more about ideology than recovery, opinionated and non evidence based. Sadly, adherents are focused on discrediting HM. This itself is so prevalent it seems a component of life post abstinence only based recovery. Support groups with an anti HM message are today growing faster than ever.

Ignorant media support for this has grown. Drug users face inequality due to prohibition, discrimination and ignorance. Fortunately the message from Vienna undermines Mr. Christians long standing references to the UNODC, UN conventions, UN opposition to aspects of HR and the Howard years “Road to Recovery” and “The Winnable War” reports. I’m not surprised he expressed his opinion, if not doing so on behalf of all hard-line attendees.

Nonetheless, opposition to HM is global, organised and well funded. As Dr. Wodak notes there remains the unresolved issue of many nations who have resisted HR measures, and ignored human rights obligations. To this we may add anticipated and possibly drawn out negotiations with the INCB.

Ultimately realisation of these resolutions will take place in a climate of opinionated hostility and emotive distraction. We can expect more reports on “failures of HM”. Miranda Devine herself summed this moral bullying up for what it is, when arguing for intolerance because accepting tolerance was “viscerally wrong”.

I’d only add that’s why I think with the neurons surrounded by my skull - not my…

Paul G.
Drug Free Australia Watch.

You’ll be a Caroline Chisolm -like figure to future Australian generations…hopefully the Catholic Church will have female clergy by then….well, I am talking 100 years hence !!!!!!!!!!!!