Abstract

The evolving crisis of drug addiction and its intersection with the criminal justice system has prompted critical reassessment of punitive legal models. This paper argues that meaningful rehabilitation is best achieved through judicially guided diversion rather than decriminalisation alone. Drawing from case studies such as Unit 104 at the Kenton County Detention Center, Portsmouth’s city-wide recovery initiatives, the Dalgarno Institute's advocacy for the "Judicial Educator" model, and innovative rehabilitative programs including animal-assisted therapy and financial literacy initiatives, this paper explores the integration of restorative justice, individualised treatment, and community-based alternatives to incarceration. By synthesising field-based innovations with a progressive vision for reform, the paper illustrates how shifting from punishment to rehabilitation promotes long-term public safety, reduces recidivism, and restores human dignity.

View PDF

Teen vaping is on the rise. Around the world, 16.8% of young people have already tried e-cigarettes, often starting as early as 14 years old. The risks? Nicotine addiction, lung damage, harmful chemicals, and even mental health concerns. Schools are on the frontline to tackle this issue, and now, a new programme called ‘Our Futures Vaping’ is aiming to revolutionise teen vaping prevention in schools.

Why Teen Vaping Prevention is Essential: Reports indicate that one in four teenagers in Australia has experimented with vaping. With the average age of initiation being just 14, the potential harm cannot be ignored. The effects of vaping include:

• Lung injuries caused by chemical exposure
• Higher risk of transitioning to smoking cigarettes
• Possible long-term mental health difficulties

Despite regulatory reforms aiming to restrict vaping to medicinal use, illegal access remains widespread. To address this challenge, schools need prevention tools that are credible, age-appropriate, and accessible.

A New Approach to Teen Vaping Prevention with Digital Lessons: A team of researchers has co-designed an innovative school-based programme called ‘Our Futures Vaping’. This cutting-edge project takes the fight against teen vaping to the classroom, with an engaging digital platform tailored to Year 7 and 8 students. It’s more than just a teaching tool; it’s a way to empower students with knowledge, critical thinking skills, and the confidence to say no to vaping.

Co-designed with Students and Teachers: The secret to ‘Our Futures Vaping’ lies in its unique development process. Built collaboratively with 34 teenagers, alongside input from teachers, the programme reflects real-life experiences of students. Every storyline and character was shaped by students to mirror current social pressures and attitudes, ensuring the content feels authentic.

Teachers, with an average of 17 years of classroom experience, also played an integral role. They helped fine-tune the lessons to align with educational standards while addressing challenges like class time limitations and technology access.

What Makes ‘Our Futures Vaping’ Stand Out?: The programme doesn’t just tell students to avoid vaping. Instead, it immerses them in interactive digital lessons designed to engage and educate:

• Cartoon Narratives with Real-Life Scenarios

Students learn the risks of vaping through relatable storylines.

• Interactive Quizzes and Challenges

These enhance understanding and boost participation.

• Tasting Success with Peer-Led Storytelling

Characters in the lessons show the importance of resisting peer pressure.

Each session lasts around 40 minutes, blending online resources with optional print materials for flexibility. Teachers don’t require any training to use it, and everything is easily accessible through a dedicated online dashboard.

Feedback Shaping the Future: During user testing with 37 students and 13 teachers, the programme received overwhelmingly positive reactions. Here’s what stood out:

• Students rated the lessons highly, saying they were informative, realistic, and engaging.
• Teachers valued its curriculum alignment and flexible format.
• Suggestions from students led to practical improvements, including more diversity in characters, relatable struggles in quitting vaping, and a better balance between text and visuals.

These revisions helped create a well-rounded final version of ‘Our Futures Vaping’, ensuring it resonates with both teens and educators.

The Study’s Key Findings: The rigorous testing process has proven that this new programme is not only functional but impactful. Here’s what makes ‘Our Futures Vaping’ a strong contender in the fight against teen vaping:

• Students displayed improved understanding of vaping risks.
• The interactive content kept students engaged and attentive.
• Teachers reported higher levels of participation compared to traditional lessons on health education.

Why Digital Innovation Matters: The beauty of digital lessons lies in their scalability. Unlike one-off lectures or assemblies, ‘Our Futures Vaping’ provides consistent, evidence-based education across classrooms. It also ensures that all students, regardless of their prior exposure to vaping education, benefit from the same high-quality resources.

By incorporating peer-led storytelling and social influence models, the programme boosts its effectiveness in shaping positive behaviours. It’s tailored for the adolescent mindset, bridging the gap between traditional health education and the digital world teens live in.

Be Part of the Solution: The rise in teen vaping can feel overwhelming, but tools like ‘Our Futures Vaping’ offer a glimmer of hope for educators and parents. Early prevention and education can equip young people with the ability to make smarter, healthier choices.

Schools now have the opportunity to implement a programme that not only educates but engages students in a way that sticks with them. By prioritising Teen Vaping Prevention in Schools, we can help shift the narrative and empower the next generation to say no to vaping.

Are you ready to take steps in making a difference? Share this information with schools and educators in your network, and help spread the word about this life-changing initiative. (Source: WRD News)

Also see Vaping Crisis Resource Sheet and Not Even Once – Clearing the Air

The resurgence of psychedelics in the United States has reignited fierce debates about their safety, efficacy, and the ethical concerns surrounding their use in mental health treatment. Once dismissed as dangerous hallucinogens associated with counterculture movements, substances like MDMA and psilocybin are now being promoted as potential therapies for mental health disorders. But despite the rising enthusiasm, serious risks and controversies overshadow the movement’s credibility.

Recent developments have exposed significant flaws in the drive to legitimise psychedelics as a medical treatment. Leading the charge has been the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), founded by Rick Doblin. For years, MAPS championed MDMA, also known as “ecstasy,” as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), claiming it could help trauma survivors where traditional therapies had failed. However, these bold claims met resistance in August when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected MAPS’s application to approve MDMA for PTSD treatment. The FDA cited unresolved safety concerns and demanded more rigorous research—raising alarm bells about potential harm to vulnerable patients.

Among the issues flagged was the problem of “functional unblinding” in clinical trials. Participants who took MDMA often recognised its effects compared to those given a placebo, potentially biasing the results. Critics argue that such methodological weaknesses undermine the reliability of the findings, making it difficult to separate genuine therapeutic benefits from placebo effects. Additionally, reports of trial participants suffering adverse side effects, including increased suicidal thoughts, cast further doubt on the safety of MDMA in a clinical context.

The lack of robust regulation within the psychedelic movement has also come under fire. Allegations of misconduct during therapy sessions, including inappropriate behaviours by therapists, have been particularly troubling. These incidents suggest that in the rush to advocate psychedelics, the movement has overlooked essential safeguards. Ethical practices have been questioned as some researchers and therapists appear more aligned with the movement’s countercultural roots than with professional medical standards.

From a scientific standpoint, the evidence supporting the use of psychedelics remains alarmingly weak. A Cochrane Review, known for its rigorous analysis of clinical research, assessed psychedelic studies and rated the quality of evidence as “low to very low.” Serious adverse events, including hospitalisations and even fatalities, have been documented in individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions—the very group these treatments are intended to help. These findings underscore the need for extreme caution when considering psychedelics as an alternative to established therapies.

The cultural aspect of the movement further complicates its acceptance within mainstream medicine. Psychedelics are often promoted in a utopian, almost evangelical manner, with supporters touting them as groundbreaking solutions to mental health challenges. However, this fervour risks undermining the scientific objectivity required to evaluate such treatments. For critics, the movement’s idealistic approach appears reckless, prioritising ideology over patient safety and scientific integrity.

The FDA’s rejection of MDMA has prompted some within the movement to re-evaluate their approach. Both Rick Doblin and Lykos Therapeutics’ CEO have stepped down, signalling efforts to professionalise the field and align it more closely with the standards of pharmaceutical regulation. Despite this, the question remains whether the psychedelic industry can overcome its legacy of countercultural enthusiasm and deliver on its promises in a safe, evidence-based manner.

Ultimately, the psychedelic movement’s push for medical legitimacy presents a stark warning about the dangers of rushing experimental treatments into practice. Psychedelics, if mishandled, could not only harm vulnerable individuals but also undermine trust in scientific and psychiatric advances. Until rigorous trials and clear ethical boundaries are established, these substances remain a highly risky proposition, raising more concerns than they answer in the complex landscape of mental health care.

(Source: WRD News)

SUMMARY: Australian youth harm minimisation drug policies increased substance use and harm and were inferior to American abstinence polices. When Australia adopted abstinence polices, substance use and harm reduced

Professor John Toumbourou, Deakin University.

View PDF

In what might go down as the most expensive experiment in missing the point, Australia’s decades-long dance with harm reduction policies has produced results that would be laughable if they weren’t so tragic. New data reveals a sobering reality: whenever harm reduction takes centre stage, drug-related deaths perform their own tragic encore.

Historical Context: Australia’s Drug Policy Journey

The trajectory of Australia’s drug policy reads like a cautionary tale in unintended consequences. Between 1985 and 1999, as Australia embraced harm reduction approaches, it achieved an unfortunate distinction: the highest drug use rates among OECD countries. The numbers tell a stark story – opiate deaths rose from 347 in 1988 to 1,116 in 1999, a trajectory that should have set off alarm bells throughout the public health community.

However, a brief period of hope emerged between 1998 and 2006, when Australia implemented the Federal Prevention approach. During this period, deaths from all drug types decreased significantly. This success was short-lived. From 2007 onward, with the return to harm reduction priorities, death rates began climbing again across all drug categories.

The harm reduction movement’s reliance on questionable scientific methodology deserves scrutiny. Consider the 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s injecting room, which claimed a 9% reduction in overdose deaths. Official British Columbia coroner’s figures tell a different story:

• 2001: 90 overdose deaths
• 2002: 49 deaths
• 2003: 51 deaths
• 2004: 67 deaths (37% increase after facility opened)
• 2005: 55 deaths (still 12% higher than pre-facility)

The study’s methodology artificially created positive results by comparing different time periods in a way that obscured the actual impact of the facility.

Current Harm Reduction Proposals: A Critical Examination

Pill Testing: The Dangerous Illusion of Safety

Proponents of pill testing present it as a scientific solution to drug-related deaths. However, a comprehensive analysis of 392 Ecstasy-related deaths in Australia between 2000 and 2018 reveals the fundamental limitations of this approach:

• 14% of deaths resulted from allergic-type reactions that no pill testing regime could predict
• Nearly half (48%) of deaths involved polysubstance use, particularly combinations with alcohol and cocaine
• 29% of deaths occurred due to accidents while intoxicated

These statistics highlight a crucial flaw in the pill testing paradigm: it creates a false sense of security while being unable to prevent the primary causes of Ecstasy-related deaths. The very presence of pill testing facilities may inadvertently legitimise drug use, suggesting to potential users that there exists a “safe” way to consume illegal substances.

Injecting Rooms: The Statistics That Don’t Add Up

Perhaps nowhere is the failure of harm reduction more evident than in the statistics surrounding injecting facilities. The Sydney injecting room reported overdose rates 63 times higher than the pre-registration rates of its clients – a number that defies logical explanation. Melbourne’s Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIR) reported even more troubling numbers, with overdose rates 102 times higher than street rates.

These statistics raise serious questions:

1. How do these facilities actually prevent harm when they appear to be associated with increased risk-taking behaviour?
2. Are these facilities inadvertently creating “safe spaces” for dangerous behaviour rather than reducing it?
3. Does the presence of medical supervision encourage users to take greater risks?

The 2020 government-funded evaluation of Melbourne’s MSIR revealed another troubling trend: deaths actually increased in the facility’s area, mirroring increases across Melbourne. This suggests that rather than preventing deaths, these facilities may be prolonging dangerous drug use patterns, ultimately leading to greater loss of life.

The International Experience: Cautionary Tales

Portugal’s Decriminalisation: A Closer Look at the Data

Portugal’s 2001 drug decriminalisation policy is often cited as a model for drug policy reform. However, a detailed examination of the outcomes reveals concerning trends:

• Overall drug use has increased by 59% since implementation
• Minor drug use has seen increases of up to 80%
• Overdose deaths have risen by 85% since 2002
• Portugal now ranks among the top three EU countries for illegal drug use in wastewater testing

These statistics stand in stark contrast to the narrative of success often presented by harm reduction advocates. The Portuguese experience suggests that removing criminal penalties, while maintaining technical illegality, creates a confusing middle ground that may actually increase drug use and associated harms.

The Colorado Cannabis Experiment: Unintended Consequences

Colorado’s journey with cannabis liberalisation provides another warning about the potential consequences of harm reduction approaches. Following medical cannabis law loosening in 2009 and full legalisation in 2013, the state experienced:

• A 410% increase in cannabis-related suicides by 2016
• A 360% increase in cannabis-related hospitalisations
• A 230% increase in cannabis-related traffic deaths
• A doubling of adult cannabis use

These numbers suggest that policies intended to reduce harm may instead normalise drug use and increase overall societal costs.

Evidence-Based Success Stories: What Actually Works

While the failure of harm reduction approaches is clear, several jurisdictions have demonstrated remarkable success with prevention-focused policies:

• Sweden achieved an 80% reduction in secondary student illicit drug use between 1971 and 1990 through a consistent focus on prevention and clear anti-drug messaging.
• Iceland’s prevention-focused approach resulted in a 60-90% reduction in secondary student illicit drug use from 1998 to present.
• Australia achieved a 40% reduction in both student and adult drug use during the “Tough on Drugs” period (1998-2007).
• The US much-maligned but effective “Just Say No” campaign achieved a 70% reduction in secondary student use between 1981 and 1991, demonstrating the power of clear, consistent messaging.

Time for Change: The Path Forward

As Australia approaches another Drug Summit, policymakers face a critical choice. The evidence clearly shows that harm reduction policies, despite their compassionate intentions, have failed to deliver on their promises. Instead, they have often contributed to increased drug use, higher death rates, and greater societal costs.

The success stories from Sweden, Iceland, and Australia’s own “Tough on Drugs” era provide a clear roadmap for effective drug policy:

1. Prioritise prevention over harm reduction
2. Implement clear, consistent anti-drug messaging
3. Maintain strong legal deterrents while providing appropriate treatment options
4. Focus on reducing overall drug use rather than merely managing its consequences

The time has come to acknowledge that enabling drug use while calling it “harm reduction” has failed. The data shows that Prevention, Demand Reduction, and Recovery aren’t just buzzwords – they’re proven lifesavers. The cost of maintaining failed harm reduction policies is measured not just in dollars, but in lives lost and potential squandered. It’s time for a return to these evidence-based strategies that have demonstrated real success in reducing drug use and its associated harms. (WRD News November 6th 2024^thWRD News November 6th 2024)

Also see

• How Harm Reduction Works in Australia
• And Podcast “Drug Policy: ‘Injecting’ Healing, Hope or Harm?”