quote:

---

HEAVILY-addicted drug users and alcoholics will be forced to have treatment in hospital under a two-year pilot proposed by the New South Wales Government.

The Government is drafting changes to the Inebriates Act 1912 to enable the trial to take place.

The changes would allow medical practitioners to seek a court order referring a severely drug- or alcohol-dependent person to compulsory treatment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
... Inebriates Act?

I think we should have a Debauchery Act.

---

Well did some research on the Act:

quote:

---

the Inebriates Act of 1912, which enabled alcoholics to be treated as patients in mental hospitals

---

History of Inebriates act

It seems they had been looking to get rid of this act in NSW. Apparently, not only are they not getting rid of it now, they are expanding upon it by amending it to include drug addicts.

It seems for people to be covered under this Inebriation Act, of 1912, all you need is a couple of Drs to sign saying; "yes, this person has problem lock em up for 28 days for their own safety."

Imagine, this "Mental Health" Act will be a 100 years oldin five years, now they have decided to keep it around, after 74 years of trying to get rid of it. I wonder if they will give it a 100 year birthday bash?

quote:

---

Australasian Psychiatry
Volume 13 Issue 2 Page 195 - June 2005
The New South Wales Inebriates Act: going, going, gone?
Peter Shea1

Objective: To describe how the use of psychiatric hospitals as institutions for inebriates came about in New South Wales.

Conclusions: A so-called 'temporary' solution to a political problem...led to the psychiatric hospitals in New South Wales becoming repositories for inebriates...This unsatisfactory situation may be about to change.

---

I'm also old enough to remenber when every Liquour Store maintained what was commonly referred to as "the indian list"; people who were forbidden to purchase or possess alcohol. I'm not sure what the statutory basis for that was, but it was very real, and everyone in a small town knew who was on it.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
You know, I see nothing in this legislation that is more potentially intrusive as our own Ontario Mental Health Act. At least, as best as I understand it, the NSW provisions require a court order. Not so here, where a single practitioner can "put you on a form".

---

In BC, it is 2 weeks, if your deemed a danger to yourself, or another, with 1 Dr signing. This is not hinged on substance addictions. Substances addictions do not fall within BC mental health parameteres unless there is a dual diagnosis, and not really then.

One cannot be thrown into the Psych ward for being a drunk or high all the time. Only if during that frame of being you became a extreme danger to yourself or others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Substances addictions do not fall within BC mental health parameteres unless there is a dual diagnosis, and not really then.
...
You can be kept against your will for up to 28 days with 2 Drs signing. But then it must be reviewed with at least 2 Drs and person/agency designated to be legal guardian. This would never be done with addictions issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

In BC, it is 2 weeks, if your deemed a danger to yourself, or another, with 1 Dr signing. This is not hinged on substance addictions.

---

When I was a general practitioner in a small town in BC, the local RCMP actually tried to get us to certify drunks in the drunk tank stating they could not hold them under the Charter of Rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BleedingHeart:
When I was a general practitioner in a small town in BC, the local RCMP actually tried to get us to certify drunks in the drunk tank stating they could not hold them under the Charter of Rights.

The rotation of the same same 10-20 drunks in the emergency room and hospital in that same small town drove me out of general practice.

---

Um, I am not sure what you meant me to get from your post?

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Was it an affirmation that the BC system cannot hold persons based upon substance abuse?
And/or that they should be able to? Or not able to? Or other?

---

1. Substance abuse is not grounds for certification under the mental health act in any province that I am aware of. When I was in the business of being able to certify people, I was aware that occasionally people who were really just alcoholics did get certified.

2. While I expect compulsorary treatment for alcoholics will not work, even if 1 in 20 get better, that might be a good result. Quite frankly at 3 am when my phone used to ring, the idea of locking somebody up for 30 days sounded pretty atractive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Without treatment, they stop drinking/doing drugs when they decide to quit, or they die; whichever comes first.

---

That's exactly right!

The game here is to avoid taking on hard cases because it will make the treatment stats look bad, and then there will be criticisms from right-wing taxpayer groups, or even the Auditor General. So let them go where they will, and in the meantime the Crown is collecting all those liquor taxes.

The idea that light bulb has to come on for the addict first, and only then can we help them, is taken right out of the insurance salesman's manual. Avoid advserse risks. Select only those who've shown they're at least moderately acceptable risks, in this situation by starting to take action themselves.

For the hard core addict who is so sick and so mixed up they don't know how sick they are, putting the responsibility on their shoulders to see the reality of their situation and make the first step is a ridiculous line of thinking that has no hope of succeeding. It leads directly to your second outcome, death, for the addict at least and whoever else they may happen to drive into in the meantime.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidMR:
How much do you suppose the BC Govt makes each year off liquor sales, and how much does it spend on alcohol and drug treatment programs? Would it be a ten to one ratio, or more?

---

Found this in a search it seems reasonable in its amounts:

quote:

---

B.C. Liquor Stores and distribution centres are the province's largest retailer. In the last five years, they have contributed $3.1 billion in profits — plus $1.5 billion in sales and excise taxes — to help pay for vital public services.

---

http://www.workingtv.com/ldbprivatize.html

There is no way the BC government spends 300 million a year, directly on alcohol addiction resolution. I am including a link to the BC 2005 budget in case someone wants to look up how much was spent on mental health and forensic issues regarding addictions.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2005/default.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
There is no way the BC government spends 300 million a year, directly on alcohol addiction resolution. I am including a link to the BC 2005 budget in case someone wants to look up how much was spent on mental health and forensic issues regarding addictions.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2005/default.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidMR:
I gave it a try for about a half hour or so, but I cannot find anything in the BC Govt's Budget or Estimates which purports to be total provincial spending on alcohol and drug counselling and treatment.

---

Pretty much the same reason, that I did not try for long, but I thought others may be up to it.

quote:

---

[qb]Part of the problem seems to be that the programs are now under the wing of each of the five regional health authorities, and there is no longer a provincial program and bureau per se.

---

You are correct, there is not an individual provincial ministry or program. The Ministry of Mental Health was dissolved in 1994-1995. The former Ministry used to run parallel to the Ministry of Health, with the same budget etc.

However, addiction programs are not even strictly relegated to the Regional Health Boards. If there is a crime involved, and the under laying issue is addictions, then Forensics under Criminal Justice out of the office of the Attorney General gets involved. If it is with those under 18, then it is the Ministry for Children and Family Development, all others fall under the 5 Health Regions services.

The only short cut would be looking at the Health Regions budgets that have the most significant addictions issues and/or detox facilities in the province per capita, I.e. the GVA, Vancouver Island Health Authority, and the Northern Interior Region.

It is unfortunate, that in this day and age, there is not a singular focus on addictions. As Sineed and bleedingheart noted, “compulsory drug/alcohol abuse treatment doesn't work”, there needs to be immediate access for those wanting and needing it.

Wasting money on pilot programs of forced sobriety is what, IMO, society doesn’t need. The abstinence model does not work, and that is why Canada uses the Harm Reduction Model.

IMO, AU, or NSW, should take that money and invest into let’s say a 24 hr heroin detox for those who want it, and/or have immediate intensive detox and counselling for coke and methamphetamine addicts, instead of putting them on a methadone program that now gives them 2 addictions instead of 1.

I feel the same for monies in BC, that are wasted in; creating and/or dissolving Ministries every 2 minutes, or paying administrative costs for 5 Health Districts individual mental health and addiction programs, plus the other 2 ministries involved that also have separate administration of addictions, instead them spending less on 1 coordinated ministry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus:
Ok bye!

---

Thanks rasmus, obviously Joel could not read, but felt compelled to post a slam anyway.

For clarification sake, the topic is not about BC doing the 28 days enforced incarceration for being drunk or addicted, it is about NSW in AU doing it. We were comparing the fact that Canada, and indeed BC does NOT strip people of their rights because of addiction issues.