Drugs, Driving and Manufactured Consent?
Some points of note:
!2 steps is not successful, it is amongst the least successful, less so than even self determined harm reduction by abstention and reduction..
(we recently recieved best practice advice that drug treatment in prison should be delivered by health professionals!)
We have state funded Scientology in our NZ schools and it goes unquestioned.
We have Bus stop posters about driving. that are gravely flawed.
Television adds that do not say the driver is an actor and hasn't actually driven these actresses around stoned.
On social media we see grossly conflated data suggesting we should answer a possible problem with a question "What do you think?"
There is no balance questioning this.
The increased enforcement in other jurisdictions has not made any difference to the measured harms.
We are being conditioned into thinking we should comply with an impositional test, the "guilty by machine." that visiting top UK cop Det ChiefSuper Eddie Ellison described as having the same 'proof of impairment' logic as licking someone exhaust pipe to see if they had been speeding yesterday.
I quote an academic source from our own Victoria University.
The Effect of Distressing Imagery on Attention to and Persuasiveness of an Anti-alcohol Message on Drugs, Society and Human Rights. (638 comments)
« While drug driving is a serious and important issue that needs debate - I agree, I think the NZ Drug Driving Awareness Campaign does little to present the 'facts' but instead sadly fuels anti-drug sentiments which will result in more hostility, ignorance and stigma towards illicit drugs and illicit drug users. On twitter they we saying things like over 70% of dead drivers were impaired by drugs (other than alcohol) - disappointing soundbites - issues too complex to deal with that way.
Blair Anderson http://mildgreens.blogspot.com