Wednesday, 23 June 2010

Brumby Lies About Safe Injection Clinics

I think the evidence now suggests it is not the way to go
-- Victorian Premier John Brumby - Talking about supervised injecting facilities (The Age)

The evidence ... What evidence?

A spokeswoman for Mr Brumby was unable to provide details on the evidence against supervised injecting rooms.
-- The Age

If this isn’t the most blatant case of government deceit, I would love to know what is.

The evidence Brumby speaks of simply doesn’t exist. What does exist though is plenty of evidence that safe injecting centres are the way to go and a local report released just yesterday proves it … again.

Rejecting a publicly funded life saving program like a safe injection clinic is the prerogative of the premier but there is also some responsibility that goes with the decision. Especially when it involves cold face lying to further his political career. Now Brumby must face the real life consequences of his decision. In short, he has condemned some people to overdosing and dying and others to serious infection with the possibility of loosing an arm. Brumby’s selfish, vote seeking actions will cause death, pain and grief … all of it avoidable. I hope one day he is called to produce his “evidence” to those families who loose someone from an overdose where a safe injection centre should have been.

A safe injection centre this is not some radical strategy that has experts undecided but a scientifically proven program that operates in several countries very successfully. It is endorsed by nearly every medical group and expert in Australia including popular support from the public. According to a poll run by The Age, as part of the article below, nearly 4 out of 5 Victorians think we need such a program. 

I want to know why John Brumby thinks he knows more than the hundreds of experts who support the injecting centre and why his opinion is important than the publics. More importantly, I want to know where John Brumby’s mystical evidence is and will he reconsider if he can’t produce it?



Mobile Injecting Room Backed
Kate Hagan
June 2010


Victorian Premier says injecting rooms are not the right way to go.

A MOBILE supervised injecting van should be considered for Melbourne due to the city's geographic spread of drug markets, experts say.

While admitting the issue is difficult politically, experts have renewed their push for supervised injecting rooms following a new report by the Burnet Institute detailing their success at reducing harm in Sydney and overseas.

And they say a mobile facility - such as one that has operated in Barcelona - could be a cost-effective way to provide services in multiple locations where drug users gather including Footscray, St Kilda, Dandenong and Richmond.

The report was commissioned by the Yarra Drug and Health Forum after residents, particularly on public housing estates in Collingwood and Fitzroy, complained of drug users injecting on their doorstep and called for a system to get them off the streets.

Forum executive officer Joe Morris said: ''People who live on the estates continually say, 'Why doesn't the government provide an area for these people to go and inject?' It doesn't mean they support drug use - in fact, some of them are very conservative in their views about what should happen to drug users - but if it's going to happen and if these people are going to inject, then they want a place for them to go.''

Mr Morris said he was aware of Victorian MPs from both major parties who privately supported supervised injecting facilities.

''I'm very hopeful that they will come out, particularly after the election, and stand up for what they believe,'' he said.

Premier John Brumby said yesterday that the government did not support supervised injecting facilities: ''We looked at this issue in some depth some years ago but I think the evidence now suggests it is not the way to go, and we've got no plans to change our policy.''

A spokeswoman for Mr Brumby was unable to provide details on the evidence against supervised injecting rooms.

A Liberal Party spokesman said the opposition did not support them. The Greens continue their support for the facilities.

Professor Robert Power, of the Burnet Institute, said evidence showed injecting facilities improved public amenity by reducing crime, public injecting and discarded needles.

The facilities had also reduced overdoses and risk behaviours for HIV and hepatitis B and C, he said.


Poll: Does Melbourne need a safe injection facility for intravenous drug users?
Yes 79%
No 21%

4 comments:

Kat D said...

*Sigh*

At what point are politicians going to feel the guilt for ignoring preventable death and disease?

Burnet report tells us we need MSIF; Brumby states the 'evidence' says otherwise. Sounds like a Bush parody.

Terry Wright said...

Howdy Kat.

I would love a people's world court where politicians are made to explain their decisions that result in unnecessary death and misery. If they can't produce scientific evidence and are found to have ignored expert advice, then they would be sentenced like anyone else in a normal court.

After the first few politicians are sentenced to 25 years in prison I'm sure it will spur a more honest parliament.

Thanks for your comment.

jay said...

I really think "we" need a participatory democracy where every piece of legislation passed or otherwise really are the wishes of the people via referendums... that , and for full transparency of a politicians' personal ,financial and political agendas to be evident in the public domain...for example ..can an attorney general invest on the stock market in things such as privatized prisons (wackenhut , geo group)then proceed on some anti-drug crusade creating/criminalizing more n more people for literally his own financial gain /increasing his net worth at the expense of the misery of others

Terry Wright said...

Thanks Jay.

"...full transparency of a politicians' personal ,financial and political agendas to be evident in the public domain"

Hear Hear!