The prominence and treatment that this
submission receives will answer the question of balance. Wet Centres and
Medically Safe Injecting Centres are both places for the consumption of substances
to feed an addiction. The only variation is the substance being consumed. Both have
the same two basic failings – they do not address the cause of the addictive
behaviour, nor do they address the effect of the addictive behaviour on those around
the addict. Centres do not put the food back on the family dining table, they
do not stop the disruptive behaviour towards the community, they do not stop
the domestic violence and abuse, they do not stop the street violence, they do
not stop the physical and mental degradation of the addicts and their families.
The member for Heffron and the member for Bligh both seem to have overlooked
the community, and the adverse effect on the community caused by the addictive
consumption of alcohol, in their desire to champion the right of the addict to
pursue their addiction and to be protected whilst doing so. Their message is
that the individual is more important than the community and the families that
make it up. This is a sad value judgement to send to the spouses, partners, children,
uncles, aunts, grand parents, relatives and cousins of the addicts – those who
bear the immediate brunt of the behaviour of the addict whilst pursuing their
addiction. I also notice that the Redfern Legal Centre, so keen to criticise moves
to protect the community, does not propose any moves to protect the community
from the actions of the individual. I would be interested to hear their reasons
as to why the families of those effected by the addiction should continue to
suffer the results, i.e. the assaults, abusive behaviour, economic deprivation to
name a few, whilst the addict is encouraged and supported to continue their
addictive behaviour. The most successful rehabilitation program in the world
that operates in every country in the world is based on the addict first
recognising that they have a problem and then wanting to fix the problem. It is
called Alcoholics Anonymous. It has been successful for many decades, maybe for
longer than the State members for Heffron and Bligh have been alive. The
Alcoholics Anonymous model has been successfully applied to many other forms of
addiction, substance, chemical and psychological based. Do the two politicians and
legal centre involved value the individual more than the community that they
are meant to represent, or has the ‘harm minimisation’ industry got three more
converts at the community’s expense? Why are the two politicians and legal centre
involved not advocating for proven rehabilitation programs instead of proposing
the facilitation of ongoing addiction at the expense of the greater community
and all those around the individual addict?
Ross Smith Strawberry Hills