Poor Smokers

Massive tax rises on cigarettes will mainly hurt those who will probably never quit.

The Rudd government has just announced that tax on cigarettes will increase by 60% over the next 4 years. Of course, health groups and many others will applaud the government for such a move citing the health benefits from reduced smoking rates. And there are many positive reasons for such a tax. But what about the negative impacts?

Price has proven to be the most effective tool for reducing smoking levels as we saw with the last major increase in Australia. When Rudd last increased the tobacco tax excise by 25% in 2010, the Department of Finance reported that smoking consumption decreased by a whopping 11%. Conveniently Rudd and co. leave out the fact that rates were already dropping by 6% and the actual affect was a 5% decrease. Still, more increases can only be a good thing, right?

Well, all is not what it seems. Research clearly shows that by dying younger we become less of a financial burden on society. Harsh but true. All the burbling about health costs incurred by smokers is just smoke and mirrors. And of course there is the growing black market. In the UK, 27% of cigarettes and 68% of roll-your-own tobacco is bought illegally. How big is the black market in Australia? All I know is that it's about to grow.

We all know that nicotine is highly addictive. Some politicians even claim it's more addictive than heroin. So why is this highly addictive substance suddenly so easy to quit? It's hypercritical when governments tout harm and addictiveness when trying to deter smoking but when they want to raise money by increasing prices, addiction is played down. Many, many people find it so difficult to kick their nicotine addiction that they will do almost anything to keep smoking. And there's no magic bullet here, this is the complex world of addiction and the rules are different for each person. 

The one vital question that has evaded this issue so far is not who it will affect but how much it will affect some people. After all, that's the point of this initiative … to affect people. To coax them out of their addiction by causing them financial pain. To put the price of tobacco out of their reach, forcing them to reconsider how they spend their often limited funds. It may sound logical and as a method for reducing smoking, it is largely successful. But elasticity of demand for tobacco is not linear and decreases as the price rises. It should be obvious that those who were going to quit because of price have most likely done so already. Only dedicated smokers, those who were rich enough not to care and the badly addicted soldiered on with their vice. Price hikes are a blunt tool and this new increase will not produce anywhere near the success of that in 2010. The most likely outcome is that it will mainly hurt those who may never quit.

Let's get some perspective here. Lower income families are already struggling, capriciously living day-to-day in a fragile financial environment. One big utility bill or unexpected expense can throw their lives into chaos, making them homeless or without electricity or gas. Add the costs for a smoker and it becomes even more precarious.  

Lack of money can often be the catalyst for family breakdown resulting in violence, ruined marriages and substance abuse. We see it everyday in this country and it's only going to get worse as cigarettes increase in price. Imagine living below the poverty line, week after week you struggle to make ends meet and one day the people who are supposed to represent you decide to rip your guts out.

Any new price increase will not force hard core addicts to quit. Instead, it will cause grief, family stress and force smokers into perilous situations. Do we really have to be reminded about the desperation of addicts and the massive cost on society? And it's not like the tiny population of those addicted to illegal drugs. There's 3.5 million smokers who will potentially be seeking alternatives to feed their addiction. It's not going to be pretty.

So, what does a hardcore smoker do at-the-moment when they don't have enough money? They skip meals or buy cheaper, unhealthy food. They wear shoes with holes in them. Car registrations and other bills are not paid. Then there's the kids. Forget that excursion little Johnny was looking forward to. And let's hope little Carrie likes stale vegemite sandwiches everyday for lunch. The reliance on welfare becomes part of their life. Asking for food vouchers just to feed their children doesn't seem so embarrassing anymore. Buying clothes from the op-shop is necessary. Living below the poverty line becomes a fact of life. 

It's about to get worse.

Most hardcore smokers will never, ever quit cigarettes and they will do whatever it takes to get by. Some women will turn to casual prostitution. Others will commit opportunistic crimes like petty theft and shoplifting. Defrauding Centrelink will not seem so taboo anymore. Others will turn to violent crime, drug dealing and similar desperate measures. Tension between couples will become explosive as their financial situation becomes untenable. Screaming matches, smashing furniture and divorce will define the new household of a smoker. Sadly, children hiding under beds or in cupboards will go unnoticed as families try to adjust to this new reality. And I mean "reality". This is not a movie or a yarn but real people suffering beyond what most of us can even imagine. Can most of us even comprehend what being evicted really means when you have no alternative? Do we really know what massive stress is when you just have absolutely no way to pay that utility bill? Could you live for a few months without electricity? Go on, try and picture what you and your family would do if you received a final court ordered eviction notice and you have no money. Scary, isn't it.

Now spare a thought for the single mother staying home to look after her young children. If she smokes and cannot quit, life is basically over for her. Because of another thoughtful Labor government initiative, single parents with children over 8 are forced onto the lower paying New Start scheme. This nasty policy is spun as a caring way to gently "encourage" people into the workforce. 

The government is dressing up brutal financial attacks on those who are the poorest as compassionate policies. I'm simply lost for words here as I'm trying to describe how much it makes me despise the government. It probably best explains why I hate politicians so damn much.

Carnage from the tax hikes will be felt mainly by low income groups.

Let's face it. This is not a health driven issue but a need to plug a massive hole in the government's budget. Any government in power would be faced with this issue whether Labor or Liberal. Revenue is down and the budget needs to be balanced. Most people understand that. What I don't get though is why the government has an insatiable need to be in surplus? And isn't there better ways to raise this cash? As usual, the reasons are purely political and some smokers will have their lives ruined because of it. It's simply not good enough. Most economists agree that Australia can run a deficit like most other countries do. This basic strategy would eliminate all the government's proposed cuts and increased taxes. And then there's the petrol excise that was fixed by Howard in an attempt to win over voters while introducing the GST. A simple realignment would cost drivers only 1.5¢ per litre but would raise about $23 billion over the next four years. 

And as a final "fuck you" to smokers, the government maintains it's ban on electronic cigarettes containing nicotine … the single most effective method to reduce the smoking of carcinogenic cigarettes. It's a stark reminder that anti-drug lobby groups like Quit are just far too influential on government policy. If the government really cared so much about our health, they would ignore the anti-drug/smoking groups and give smokers access to e-cigs. 

If health was really the issue then this policy would have been better thought out. What about making cigarettes only available via prescription? This would stop most new uptakers and be too much trouble for casual smokers. What about age limits so that the price pain is only inflicted on younger, less addicted smokers? Why aren't e-cigs used for treatment? It's just so obvious that this is not about the government's concern for our wellbeing.

As usual, those with enough money will not be affected. I don't smoke that much anymore so personally it won't really effect me too much. And those I know that still smoke just feel betrayed by Rudd. Not voting for Labor won't be a vote for Mr. Rabbott or The Greens though. They fully support the idea of hammering smokers with increased prices. I dare say we will see a few votes going to The Australian Sex Party, Wikileaks or the Drug Law Reform Party. The main result I can see for Rudd's master plan will less votes for him. Maybe even 3.5 million of them.  

Related Links:
Smoking Taxes - What About Those Who Don’t Quit?
Smoking and poverty link probe
Smoking Ban - Putting the Boot into Mental Health Patients
Tobacco Tax Increase Hurts The Poor

Did They Really Say That? Part 2 - Politicians

This is the second part in a 3 part series that puts the spotlight on some of the most remarkable comments aimed at brutalising drug policy in Australia.

Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS

 - White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner, 1986

Do politicians make more silly remarks about drugs than journalists? That’s debatable but what is not up for discussion is the importance of their responsibility to tell the truth. 

Some of the media can interpret events and facts according their particular agenda but why are politicians more renown for this shady practice? Doesn’t this defeat the whole process of democracy and elections? Politicians either lying or not knowing the facts when talking about extremely important issues is not acceptable and to even compare them with journalists for being deceitful is worrying. For politicians, it seems that lying or being void of the facts is acceptable as long as it is in the interest of their party, no matter how important the issue is.

It's time for Morris Iemma and Labor to wake up and realise that protecting families from drugs is more important than securing preferences from the Greens.

[...]

Ice is a scourge on our society. It's killing young people, it's undermining a whole generation and yet you have the Greens Party proposing decriminalisation.

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

The Greens drug policy including decriminalisation that Peter Debnam is talking about, caused much controversy in the media but it was mainly the politicians that used it as ammunition. The policy itself was very thorough and based on evidence. The problem was that in an effort to ride the current wave of controversy, the major political parties didn’t fully study the Greens drug policy and made some wild accusations that in hindsight, don’t really reflect the Green’s policy at all.

The Greens are not just about the environment. They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation … to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff.

-John Howard. Prime Minister.

That's why we're setting up specialised services in our hospitals to deal with this. It is just an absurd and ridiculous and disgusting policy.

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

any MP who supported such a policy was completely out of touch with reality

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

But I don’t think you can have at the core of it a message which says using heroin is ok. It is a deadly dangerous drug and I don’t think we want a party in Australia arguing that is actually is a good thing.

-Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

Any Member of Parliament who thinks we should de-criminalise drugs, including ‘Ice’, should take a good hard look at themselves, do the community a favour, and resign

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

One of the recent drug issues to cop a political hammering is a pure form of methamphetamine called ice. As we have heard over and over from the politicians and media is that ice is the most dangerous new drug to come out for a long time and it’s effecting us in epidemic proportions. The fact is, ice has been around for a long time and usage peaked many years ago. It’s only recently that we have seen reports of hospitals being ripped up by violent ice addicts and the epidemic levels of ice use but when use was highest, we hardly heard a peep. The effects of ice were largely over exaggerated but made a convenient issue for politicians to apply their “toughest on drugs” rhetoric.

Some of the stories of the way in which people have been terrorised and the way in which those who are addicted to ice lose all semblance of control and lapse into violent, uncontrolled, often homicidal rage and it is a frightening drug and we need a special emphasis.

-John Howard

Enough is enough, we must act before ice gets totally out of control as it can be purchased for $50

-Kevin Rudd

Ice had crept into the number one spot as Australia’s new problem drug. S.E. Asian crime organisations switched from heroin as their main export to ice but Howard and the AFP missed it. They were still trying to convince the public (and themselves) that they had stopped the heroin epidemic via the tough on drugs campaign ... which they hadn’t.

The tough-on-drugs campaigns have worked, it's just that ice has suddenly emerged in a way that the government wants to nip in the bud if it can

-Christopher Pyne 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Poor Chris. under his watch, ice was here. Yes, ice was indeed here, but the government was still spinning their other successes.

And as a result of our strategy hundreds of young Australians spent last Christmas with their parents who otherwise would have lost their lives or taken their lives as a result of heroin abuse

-John Howard. 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Whilst on heroin, a quick quote from that flossy ex opposition leader, Alex Dolly Downer. A classic “no WMDs” comment when asked about the growing opium trade in Afghanistan since the war on terror.

There may be links to the Taliban but it is certainly not believed to be a major source of funding for the Taliban (it was).

-Alexander Downer

As opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was not going to be left behind in the race to fight the ice problem but his dilemma was whether he appeared to be tough on drugs whilst trying to follow evidence based policy. So he announced Labor’s new ice initiative.

Australia needs new ideas and fresh thinking when it comes to dealing with critical and continuing problems such as drugs and crime. 

But our response must be tough, targeted and evidence-based

-Kevin Rudd. Federal Opposition Leader

And the great plan was - 3 new initiatives: a ban on the importation of crack pipes to smoke ice, a ban on the sale to minors of pseudoephedrine and a ban on the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet. Very good Kevin, that should do it.

The real debate though was being “tough on drugs”. A recent development was that, instead of debating drug strategies, the politicians would try to score brownie points for being the toughest of the tough and try to brand their opposition as “soft on drugs”. Howard aligned himself with the Zero Tolerance cheer squad including Bronwyn Bishop, Ann Bressington, Christopher Pyne etc. and attacked Harm Minimisation including terminology like recreational / party drugs, state cannabis laws and anything else that was not Zero Tolerance.

As I have said previously concerned parents need to watch closely who opposes the measure that will send a clear message that drugs are not normal teenage behaviour, whether that be members of parliament educates or health care professionals it will be an indication of who is soft on drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Labor's preference deal with the Greens, who were soft on drugs, showed the ALP was not as strict on the issue

-John Howard

No-one can accuse the Iemma Government on being soft on drugs

-John Watkins. NSW Police Minister

No-one can accuse this Government of being soft on drugs

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

I wish the Greens wouldn’t be soft on drugs ... and national security

-Ron Boswell. Nationals Leader in The Senate

Dr. Alex Wodak gives his “soft on drugs” quote.

Howard can't lose on this. If he wins, he'll be wrapped in the Australian flag as protecting the youth of the future. If he loses, then the states get labelled 'soft on drugs'."

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Being tough on drugs never quite worked out though in the real world. The ice issue was got plenty of attention but what about other issues. Drugs in sport.

The NRL applies limited sanctions for the first position, and for the second, a more serious penalty. This accords precisely with the Government's approach - we don't give any quarter to anyone about drugs.

-Christopher Pyne. Congratulating the NRL on their 2 strike policy being an example of the government’s 1 strike policy

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC)

He (Mark Latham) wants to read books to kids when they're five and he wants to give them access to drug injecting rooms when he's 15.

-Tony Abbott. Health Minister

Politicians loved the MSIC. So much so, that when other states showed interest in the service, the federal government threatened to step in.

We would look at what the Commonwealth could do constitutionally. If there were any further proposals in Australia for heroin injecting rooms, we would look at what action we could take

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

How about the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre AND ice

The Commonwealth Government does not support the heroin injecting room, and if it is becoming the ice injecting room we think that is the wrong approach

-Christopher Pyne

... how about everything ... including graffiti.

...social issues that are all too often underpinned by substance abuse, such as youth suicide; teenage pregnancy; abortion; unemployment; welfare dependency; poor school retention rates; family breakdown; child abuse, neglect and abandonment; domestic violence; prostitution; crime; road rage; road fatalities; and even graffiti, believe it or not.

-Ann Bressington

... and think of the children

We do not hearabout how many babies are born addicted in this country. Now he was not just a heroin baby; he was a methamphetamine baby, a methadone baby, a dope baby, a pill baby. God knows how he turned out normal.

-Ann Bressington

Ah, Ann Bressington ... Chris Pyne with a bogan haircut. Chris Pyne and Ann Bressington are birds of a feather. Both are from S.A., both with strong views against drugs, both with out a shred of credibility and both wanting to ban drug paraphernalia. What is Pyne speak for “ban the bong”?

I'm certainly concerned about the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances

-Christopher Pyne

This was par for the course. If they couldn’t stop people from using drugs, they were going to make it hard for them. It didn’t matter if it actually stopped drug use or not as long as there was a sound bite to go with it.

Imposing a ban on the sale of drug paraphernalia not only sends the message that drugs are socially unacceptable, but it makes it more difficult for first-time drug users to experiment with illicit substances.

-Christopher Pyne

First time drug users of course didn’t give a shit about whether they had a bong or not, they could just whip one up at home with their neighbours garden house and a orange juice container. 

Ann had a different reason why the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances was wrong. It was for their own good because they didn’t really enjoy it.

... in her 11 years of experience she has not met one drug user that has not had underlying emotional issues, and this is why they use drugs, to avoid dealing with those issues. People who know how to enjoy themselves don’t use drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Arh, Bressington logic. That explains why the millions who have used drugs, don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

With all this tough on drugs talk and each politician trying to get one up on the other, it was bound to happen. Yep, fighting amongst themselves was inevitable.

The Labor party room is divided in its attitudes to drugs. Duncan Kerr, a member of Mr Rudd's frontbench, is the convenor of the Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform. This group supports decriminalisation and harm-reduction policies ahead of a tough, no-nonsense approach

-Christopher Pyne

I don't want to name those members but sometimes you have thoughts particularly if they are campaigning to legalise marijuana, cannabis and they think it's a harmless drug

I think the deduction could be, if that's their view, that they are using it themselves.

-Fred Nile. Politician - Christian Democrat

All health professionals and law-enforcement agencies are horrified by the impact of ice on our community, and here you see the State Government condoning - in fact, promoting - the use of ice

-Peter Debnam. NSW Politician. Alarmed that addicts were allowed to inject ice in the MSIC centre

What about the politicians nightmare, cannabis? The issue of personal use being decriminalised has seen several states reduce the penalties for cannabis possession to on-the-spot fines or similar. Moving towards a more rational approach on cannabis is long overdue but the previous government had other ideas. Alcohol was fine and received very little attention but a drug that causes a tiny percentage of problems in comparison was not. 

We have to treat it(cannabis) as an illicit drug as dangerous as heroin, amphetamines or cocaine

-Christopher Pyne

Even though alcohol causes 100 times more damage than cannabis, the Howard government just couldn’t take the focus off grass. The National Cannabis Strategy was released, portraying marijuana as a dangerous, evil drug when the National Alcohol Strategy had this to say:

Alcohol plays an important role in the Australian economy. It generates substantial employment, retail activity, export income and tax revenue. Alcohol also has an important social role...

Personally, I like this quote about alcohol:

Woman: "Sir, you are drunk." 

Winston Churchill: "Indeed, madam, and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober."

We know that governments like to take credit whenever there is a dip in drug use statistics, but when those statistics aren’t so flattering, why try and explain it away, just make up your own results. This classic quote is from Christopher Pyne, answering criticism about research into a national anti-drug advertising campaign that found Australians already know the dangers and it was not actually stopping people from using drugs

It confirms research (it didn’t) that the Government's done, which shows that younger people, in particular, are becoming very well aware of the harmful effects of cannabis and other illicit drugs on their mental state -Christopher Pyne

Yes, it’s true, he did say this.

It seems obvious now that tough drug policies, especially Zero Tolerance is the way to go if you want to be a successful politician. The problem is that Harm Minimisation is Australia’s official drug policy but it’s probably best not to let the public in on that. HM underlies all the success but ZT is the political profile that gets votes. 

They are evil, all of them, and there should be an uncompromising social condemnation of drugs. Why can't we have the same attitude towards drugs that a large section of the community has developed towards tobacco?

-John Howard

Well for the life of me I can't see why we shouldn't have a completely zero tolerance, an uncompromising approach to illicit drug taking

-John Howard

The first and most important thing governments have got to do is communicate a message of unconditional hostility to the use of illicit drug

-John Howard

If only it was that simple. You see, Zero Tolerance doesn’t work and never has. Basically it’s prohibition but puts users in the same class as the big dealers and manufacturers. But the criminals at the top are very hard to catch, so rounding up users becomes the strategy to show success. The larger the drug problem grows, the more that easy pickings like users and small time dealers are targeted. It’s known as “drugs on the table” or the “numbers game”. It doesn’t help anyone but as the problem grows, the more the public want results so showing that the police are being tough on drugs is hailed as the answer. The problem being that the answer is the actual cause.

Zero Tolerance is the basis for the "War on Drugs". Bronwyn Bishop even named her infamous report, “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Is it really winnable?

There are naysayers who believe a global fight against illegal drugs is unwinnable. I say emphatically they are wrong. Our slogan for the Special Session is "A Drug Free World - We Can Do It!" The United Nations and the International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will help lead the way. - Towards a drug-free world by 2008 - we can do it…

-Pino Arlacchi. 1998. United Nations Under-Secretary-General

“We can do it” ... we didn’t. Not only didn’t we reach the goal of a drug free world, drug use increased. Those zany, crazy UN people.

Prohibition has been proven not to work for both drugs and alcohol. Funnily enough, we always refer to alcohol prohibition as a huge failure but it is minor in comparison to the failure of drug prohibition. This is what one of the greatest minds ever known had to say about prohibition.

The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.

-Albert Einstein

John Howard was optimistic though.

We are making progress in the war against drugs, but we have a long way to go

-John Howard

There was one positive though according to US Republican and political commentator, P.J. O'Rourke .

Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.

-P.J. O'Rourke

So who is right? Howard? Rudd? Pyne? Roxon? Which policy is best for Australia? Harm Minimisation? Zero Tolerance. John Howard never really knew what the official drug policy was for Australia and always said we have to be tough on drugs including users. Does Rudd support ZT or does he support evidence based policy? Well that’s hard to tell because there has been no official drug policy from Labor since they took office. Let’s see what the Rudd and Howard governments have said previously. BTW, Harm Minimisation is still the official drug policy since 1985.

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse.

Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

We will never adopt a harm minimisation strategy; we will always maintain a zero tolerance approach.

-John Howard

We're judgemental when it comes to the undesirability of starting drug taking in the first place. We shouldn't be judgmental about people who have become addicted. We should be helpful towards them, we should offer them support, we should offer them rehabilitation and we should offer them comfort and affection.

-John Howard

Our general approach when it comes to drugs policy is one of zero tolerance

-Kevin Rudd. Opposition Leader.

I believe in evidence-based policy

-Kevin Rudd. Prime Minister

And finally we turn to Christopher Pyne for the final word on the complex issue of drug policy in Australia.

We firstly have to make people understand that using drugs is wrong, it's bad for them, it's bad for the general society because of all the problems that it causes.

-Christopher Pyne

Yes, again, he did say this.

So there we have it, evidence versus politics. It might be of interest to note that recently, nearly every credible report commissioned by a government into a strategy for making progress on the drug problem has been completely ignored by the government itself. Our politicians cannot defend themselves as not having adequate information on alternative policies or not knowing the damage that current strategies are having on society. The quotes I have presented might be humorous or even absurd but politicians, of all people, should be taking this subject seriously. Yes, we hear it all the time now, that this subject or that subject is above politics but illicit drugs are the second largest industry on the planet. Larger than oil or legal drugs and only out shadowed by weapons/miltary spending. It is responsible for much of the world’s crime and divides communities more than any other subject except maybe religion. The biggest issue though, is that the above issues which are man made and preventable keep getting documented and ignored by politicians. That’s truly shameful.

In thoughtful circles, the debate is over, harm reduction wins. 

Now the task is to get this through the political maze

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Previous: Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media

Next: Did They Really Say That? Part 3 - The Religious Right

Rudd & Welfare Payments for Drug Users?

Last year, ex PM John Howard said he was going to quarantine welfare payments for people convicted of drug offences. In an interview before Howard's announcement, Rudd had already said he was in favour of restricting payments of drug addicted parents. Is Rudd going to invoke Howard's harsher strategy?

With the introduction of the ‘income management debit card’ in last night’s budget, the basics have been established and the plan is to roll it our nationally starting with Aboriginal communities in NT. Can the government resist extending it too far?

An article from Blogocracy last week talks about the proposed debit card for Aboriginal parents who are negligent towards their children. It quotes an extract from an article in The Australian.

A NATIONAL welfare card that will allow the Government to control payments to negligent parents across the country will be unveiled in Tuesday’s budget.

The debit card - to be introduced in selected indigenous communities before being rolled out across Australia - will ensure half of the cardholders’ welfare payments are spent on approved goods and services, such as food and clothing for their children, rather than wasted on alcohol and drugs. The card will not carry a photograph but will be PIN-coded to prevent it being sold on the black market and abused by welfare-dependent parents.

The Government last night confirmed plans for the card, saying it would slash red tape for business and make it easier for welfare recipients to obtain goods by widening the number of outlets where quarantined welfare payments could be accepted.

It will initially be introduced into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where the Government has begun quarantining welfare payments to improve standards of care for children. But the Government plans to roll the program out across the country and into white communities.

-The Australian

The article is prior to the budget so there is still some uncertainty. Nevertheless, comments started to speculate whether the welfare card should be distributed into the white community. Instinctively many started on why drug users should have their payments restricted or even stopped. There was plenty of opinions both ways but a comment from one reader put the problem in perspective:

This is a band-aid solution - it does nothing to address the real issues. I don’t think it will result in any real change at all. People aren’t going to stop problem drinking or drug use because of a card. When you make it harder, you just make people more deceptive.

-jm of adelaide

JM of Adelaide had hit the real issue. The crackdown on negligent parents was not the only problem, the use of penalties on drug addicts was. A debit card as a welfare penalty is one more issue that people with health issues like addiction have to deal with. There is an underlying health problem being ignored and applying a restriction will just create more desperate and maybe more deceptive practices to obtain money for drugs. Blogocracy content and it's readers are leagues above the usual Daily Telegraph/Herald-Sun/Courier etc. crap but many of the comments made were still ignorant of the health issue and were happy to dish out harsh penalties to those who really need help.

... if they test positive to drugs they automatically go on to the welfare debit card, if they are not already on it, and are subject to testing for the next 3 months. If they are already on the debit card they lose 10% of their cash payment, and 10% each time they test positive, after a month of no positive test they go back to normal. If they wipe out their complete cash payment Centrelink starts paying their rent and the have the debit card for food. At the end of the day though there is only so much you can do to help people.

When you drive down the street on a dole Thursday and see people passed out in the median strip there is something wrong. As the tax payers who support the system that gives them the money to do this we are responsible. The current system is not making the problem any better so we have to try something different, and anything we can do to stop them drinking themselves to death has to be an improvement.

-Link

I was interested to know how Link deducted that the “people passed out in the median strip” receive payment on “dole Thursday”. The fact is there is no set day for unemployment payments. Similar to how my brother once said that the streets were out of control on ‘methadone day’ assuming that methadone patients got dosed on the same, one day of the week. Interestingly, he said it was Thursday as well. Also, Link’s plan to penalise drug use is as ignorant as it gets. It’s a familiar argument though, where if tested positive, instead of getting help, you get punished. What if the person was given drugs for free? There’s no misspending of their welfare payment but would be penalised anyway. Moral welfare?

Why should government welfare go to supporting a drug habit(thats all drugs not just the illegal ones).Which currently they do.Should government be in the business of encouraging its citizens drug dependence.Then having to pay for the medical conditions that result from that dependence.

-sandgroper

When it becomes mainstream for welfare, who determines who receives the card and what they can buy? If someone has a drug problem are they allowed to buy smokes or porn? What about a heroin addict on treatment, would they qualify? And if they lapse for for a few weeks, what then? Most people on treatment lapse sometimes and if they don’t have cash ... that leaves begging, borrowing or crime.

I still like the idea of drug & alcohol testing people when they get the dole. -Link

So you go out for a family diner paid by your brother, have a few glasses of red wine and tested the next day. Where does this leave you? What about pornography testing? Gambling testing? The ‘income management debit card’ cannot be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash.

There was even that favourite of the modern right, “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”.

If you want the money it is because you want to spend it on things the government did not provide it for.

-sandgroper

The need to punish drug users was often outweighing the actual discussion of restricting welfare payments of those who neglect their children. It was becoming a forum for why drug users/addicts should get payment at all.

If any parents, aboriginal or otherwise, want to kill themselves with drugs and alcohol they can do it for all I care. I just don’t see why tax-payers should subsidise it, and if this card goes towards preventing that then I’m all for it.

-Banjo of Brisbane

And even this.

Yet a terrible thought crossed my mind going through this topic. Some of the worst addicted at worst might kill their children in the belief they will get more for their addictions, or at the least will blame the kids for their reduced ability to obtain drugs and alcohol and foist even more and terrible abuse on them.

-Adrian of Nowra

If the purpose of the ‘income management debit card’ is to stop purchases of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash, what's to stop the government expanding the program to include workers? The current plan is targeted at a specific group but the government hasn't announced it's drug policy yet.

A lot of posters seem to assume that only welfare recipients neglect or abuse their children. What about parents who have jobs and waste their money on drugs, alcohol and gambling and neglect or abuse their children? Will the government confiscate their wages and issue them with a card?

-janetheunhowardhugger

Would you support the quarantining of payments for all Australian parents who use drugs and neglect their children? The moralists will argue feverishly for this and in today's political climate, it may be a vote winner. Somehow though, I feel the emphasis will be on the drug usage separately from the neglect of children. The one bright spot is that both Nicola Roxon and Kevin Rudd have mentioned that future drug policies need to be more individualised. An extremely important point that Howard's Zero Tolerance badly missed with it's blanket approach. Remember Howard was determined to change drug terminology and lump all drug use into one evil bucket of death.

And I’m seeking to conclude our point about child welfare to say that that policy was put out by us in July this year prior to Mr Howard making any such statement. Secondly, on the question of broader quarantining of welfare payments, we believe that the smart thing to do there is to take the advice of a combination of the police and the relevant health authorities as to what is best in individual circumstances. And I’ve tried to look at the detail of what Mr Howard has said. It’s full of holes, and I’d much rather see what concrete proposals he’s really additionally suggesting here. Our approach to this is to make sure that we’ve got a tailored approach to individual circumstances which is based on the best law enforcement advice, and the best advice of the health professionals.

-Kevin Rudd. Radio Interview ABC 774 Melbourne. November 2007

Once again we are seeing a health issue being treated with disciplinary action. I have no qualms about parents who neglect their children being scrutinised and dealt with but these new measures and the possible outcomes are also targeting drug addicts are a priority. They are not targeting drug addicts to help them as there are many other ways to help that are being ignored. Punitive actions are counter productive and do not address the core problems. I once described these actions as fighting a fire. You need to attack the base not the tips of the flame. It might dull the fire and keep it out of sight from a distance but the core fuel is burning hot as ever. Simply put, welfare quarantining for drug addicts solely because of their drug use does not fix the problem, it makes it worst. Medicine diagnosed addiction hundreds of years ago. Society just chose to treat it as a crime.