Details

Published: 17 August 2022

Hits: 1019

A first of its kind study has quantified the secondhand alcohol harm in Australia. It amounts to nearly $20 billion in 2016.
Bystanders bear almost 90% of the costs of harm caused by others’ alcohol use, while the government footed the rest of the bill.

The findings illustrate the strong case for improved alcohol policy solutions in Australia to reduce the alcohol burden on bystanders and improve the lives of all Australians.

The cost of the harm caused to others is about the same as the cost of the harm caused by alcohol users to themselves and to response agencies serving them. When the second-hand harms are added to the direct harms to alcohol users, the total harm due to alcohol is about double that of tobacco.

This brings the total cost of the alcohol burden in Australia to about $40 billion

“The findings make a strong case for an active role of governments in reducing burdens that [alcohol use] causes to non-users or bystanders, including active intervention in alcohol markets to reduce these externalities,” (as per La Trobe University News.)   Dr. Jason Jiang, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, La Trobe University

 

For complete research

Details

Published: 04 August 2022

Hits: 1350

Indigenous Call for a Return of Alcohol Bans

AMOS AIKMAN

The Northern Territory government’s refusal to maintain Intervention-era grog bans is undermining one of its own best measures for stopping alcohol-fuelled violence, say experts who have urged the government to rethink.

The scheme has been credited with a swift drop in alcohol fuelled and domestic violence in places such as Alice Springs.

Allowing grog bans to lapse in about 400 communities and outstations means people living there can buy booze again.

Donna Ah Chee, head of the health service Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, says her organisation’s clinics have been struggling to cope with more intoxicated patients on top of an already-crippling pandemic burden, since the alcohol rules changed on July 17.

The emergency response (dubbed the Intervention) was opposed by many Indigenous groups that were concerned about discriminatory policy. Ironically, some of those groups are at the forefront of arguing for the Intervention-era grog bans to be reinstated.

A coalition including Aboriginal Medical Alliance Services NT, National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation and the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency wrote to Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney on June 9.

In their six-page letter, they argued the provisions were “not …racist or negative discrimination”. “Rather, they are … positive and beneficial special measures in keeping with the High Court’s latest definition,” they wrote.

NT Chief Minister Natasha Fyles insisted in parliament this week that her government’s decision to scrap the grog bans was based on consultation with “hundreds” of communities.

Sources in the Aboriginal community service sector denied this and said they believed the government acted on an incorrect legal interpretation.

Ms Fyles spokeswoman said her government “cannot extend a commonwealth law, nor will we support paternalistic policies which criminalise Aboriginal communities”. The government has not answered requests to provide evidence about its consultation process or to show the changes are not causing harm.

Opposition domestic violence spokesman Steve Edgington said levels of domestic violence were “unacceptably high”, up 42 per cent since 2016.

“The catastrophic increase in domestic violence across the Territory under Labor’s watch has got to stop,” he said. “Unlike Labor, we will always put the rights of victims above those of offenders. The Fyles government has failed Territorians and failed to keep them safe. In Alice Springs last week, police  reported 54 cases of domestic violence over a 48-hour period.”

For complete story

 

  

This is our voice: tackle grog and violence

SARAH ISON JESS MALCOLM

Remote Australia’s Aboriginal female MPs have united to demand the nation tackle domestic violence and alcoholism ravaging Indigenous communities, with Labor’s Marion

Scrymgour likening the removal of grog bans to “pulling forces out of Afghanistan”.

…Senator Price and Ms Scrymgour – who are both based in Alice Springs – were united on a tough approach to alcohol fuelled violence affecting Indigenous women in the red centre.

Ms Scrymgour, who was elected to the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari in May, said grog ban measures in place for 14 years since John Howard’s Intervention could not suddenly be

revoked with no plan on how to manage the fallout. 

“When a government puts a protective regime of that kind in place, and leaves it in place for that long, you can’t just suddenly pull the pin on it without any protection, sanctuary or plan for the vulnerable women and children whom the original measure was supposed to protect,” she said in her maiden speech to the lower house.

“To do that is more than negligent – at the level of impact on actual lives it is tantamount to causing injury by omission. It’s like pulling your forces out of Afghanistan but leaving your local workers and their dependants in harm’s way on the ground without an escape plan.”

The speech came as the Territory government decided not to extend alcohol bans covering about 400 Aboriginal outstations and communities, prompting concern over a “massive”

increase in rates of violence and abuse fuelled by the abuse of alcohol. Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney is urgently seeking a meeting with Chief Minister Natasha Fyles amid concern over the lifting of the grog bans.

Senator Price began her day with her grandfather’s sister, Tess Napaljarri Ross, who has spent all week with her at parliament, with the pair participating in a traditional ceremony in the grounds of Parliament House before the maiden speech.

As she spoke emotionally of the recent murder-suicide of a young woman and her baby at the hands of the woman’s male partner in Alice Springs last week, Senator Price slammed the end of alcohol bans and said it was one of the most “appalling examples of legislation”. 

She also criticised the federal government’s moves to abolish the cashless debit card.

“We see two clear examples this week over failure to listen. The news grog bans will be lifted on dry communities, allowing the scourge of alcoholism and the violence that  accompanies it free reign,” she said. “Couple this with the removal of the cashless debit card that allowed countless families on welfare to feed their children rather than seeing their money claimed by kinship demands from alcoholics, substance abusers and gamblers in their own family group.”

For complete story

Details

Published: 27 July 2022

Hits: 1354

Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome

What Does Neonatal Mean?

Neonatal is defined as relating to or affecting a newborn infant during the first month after birth.  Neonatal is a term used in many different areas of medicine.  Addiction treatment is one field of medicine to use the term neonatal because of neonatal abstinence syndrome.

What is Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome?

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a group of medical problems faced by newborns who were exposed to addictive drugs during their mother’s pregnancy. Drugs the mother takes pass through the placenta to the baby. The baby becomes physically dependent on the drug at the same time as the mother.

If the mother continues to take drugs immediately before birth, the newborn will emerge entirely dependent on that drug. The newborn will experience withdrawal symptoms while its body is slowly getting the drug out of their system.

Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome

NOWS is the blanket term to describe a newborn with NAS caused solely by opioids.  This is the most common type of NAS.

NAS With Drugs Other Than Opioids

A newborn may experience NAS and withdrawal symptoms when exposed in the womb to:

• Alcohol
• Benzodiazepines
• Barbiturates
• Antidepressants
• Although they won’t experience NAS or withdrawal symptoms, there may be long-term health effects on babies that were exposed to:
• Nicotine
• Amphetamines
• Cocaine
• Marijuana

What Are the Signs of NAS?

Signs of NAS may be different for every newborn, most occur within 3 days of birth, but some newborns may not show signs for up to 6 months. If your newborn is showing signs of NAS, contact a doctor as soon as possible. Signs may include:

• Body shakes
• Fussiness
• Excessive crying
• Poor feeding and low weight
• Breathing problems
• Fever
• Blotchy skin
• Sleep problems
• Diarrhea
• Throwing up
• Stuffy nose
• Sneezing

Initial Medical Complications for the Newborn

Babies with NAS are at increased risk of:

• Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). SIDS may cause the unexplained death of the baby while sleeping.
• Low birthweight. If your baby weighs less than 5 lbs.
• Jaundice. Your baby’s eyes and skin look yellow, meaning the liver hasn’t developed properly.
• Seizures

For Complete Article

Also See: Children: The Real & Lasting Casualties of Domestic Violence – The AOD Connection

Details

Published: 22 June 2022

Hits: 1290

NO! is one of the most empowering protective factors in the toolkit of well-being.  We aggressively – and rightly so – promote campaigns that are unashamedly protective and at the centre of these messages is always a prohibition – a ‘NO.’ We say NO to violence against women and children  We say NO to Bullying and abuse We say NO to an ‘acceptable’ road toll through the ZERO campaign We say NO to Tobacco through the QUIT Campaign  We say NO to Crime, to Littering, to Neglect to various abuses and so on…. We say NO to things that harm, hurt, diminish and/or take from our children, families, and communities. But there seems to be one exception that is trumpeted from a small but increasingly influential group. The pro-drug protagonists in our culture continue to wage a War FOR Drugs, and a key tool in their kit is that you, ‘CAN’T SAY NO TO DRUGS!’ Why? Because they say, “it’s a ridiculous expectation on a ‘freedom’ focused culture!” or the other fallacious meme “Kids are rebellious, they’re always going to try stuff, and saying NO, is just pointless.” All behaviour is learned, and the above toxic postures are not protective. All they are doing is teaching a generation to self-harm, not self-actualize. What an individual says ‘NO’ to is one of the most profound indicators of what they value.  It is not a prohibition posture; it is a protective one. As ‘fences’ can be used at times to keep things in or out – as if ‘restrictive’,  most often fences are used to ‘keep people from’ danger. A person’s NO does not just point at what they put down, but more, it directs us to what they want to pick up instead.  The formative years of both Brain and Body development from birth to around 28 years of age, are the time when protective factors are most needed, not denied. What is concerning is that this War FOR Drugs – this ‘You Can’t Say NO to Drugs’ ridicule – means that the developing person has only two choices left; to say ‘Yes’ or ‘Maybe’ to drug use. From this now manipulated place of being disempowered to walk away from substance use, we create a likelihood of engagement. What is most disturbing about this, is that it is the use of substances that contributes to, or exacerbates, almost all the things we are trying to say NO to in our culture On this World Day Against Drugs, let us focus on empowering, enabling, and equipping our children and their families to enact the protective power of NO! Click Image for Video  The not so ‘clueless’ Nancy Regan! The mocking line of “you can’t just say ‘NO’ to drugs!” was an attempt to malign First Lady Nancy Reagan’s Anti-drug programs when in office. However, the facts, not the pejorative meme, tell a different story… When the Reagans moved into the White House on Jan. 20, 1981, drug use, particularly among teenagers, was hovering near the highest rates ever measured. Of that year’s graduating class, 65 % had used drugs in their lifetimes and a remarkable 37 % were regular drug users. Eight years later, when the Reagans left Washington, only 19.7 % of 1989’s graduating class were regular drug users, a 47 % reduction.  And the trend that began under their leadership persisted until it reached an all-time low of 14.4 % in 1992, 61 % lower than 1981. While it is too simplistic to credit Nancy Reagan alone with this downturn, it is impossible to ignore her leadership and the massive  shift she led against the drug culture. Her off the-cuff response to a young Oakland girl who asked her what to do if confronted with drugs  became a clarion call: “Just say no.” But this powerful protective option in best-health and well-being practice is being aggressively eroded by small but vociferous pro-drug actors in the public square. Actors who are being aided and abetted, not so much by ‘pushers’, but more disturbingly, promotors in the political and policy making space. The capacity to exercise NO particularly in the incredibly self-harming drug use space should be bolstered not diminished. The Dalgarno Institute continues to work tirelessly with its very limited resources to put up relevant, contemporary, engageable and evidence-based resources to empower the ‘NO’ for our vulnerable young.   This World Day Against Drugs, take the time to exercise, and help others exercise, best practice health and well-being around #toxic #drugs “Don’t Drug Yourself Down!”

Can't say no!? (You Can't Say No to Drugs 101)

The Thief (You Can't Say No to Drugs 105)

One thing for everything (You Can't Say No to Drugs 106)

Also check out – “It’s my Right to Use Drugs!” Video and “Wreckreational Drug Use” Graphic Novelette

Check out Caring in Crises – #RecoveryPosse Stigma – Drug Use & Proactive Contagions to Reduce Both