On the weekend, the name of Callum Brosnan was added to the tragic roster of young Australians killed by our politicians and police forces. Brosnan died in hospital after a Sydney dance music festival. His death joins those of two others in September at the Defqon 1 festival. The fault lies with politicians like Gladys Berejiklian and Troy Grant, the NSW police minister, and senior NSW police.
Pill-testing would not have guaranteed that they, or other young people who have died from drug overdoses or poisoning at music festivals around Australia in recent years, would still be alive. But we know it would have markedly increased the chances of that. Instead, the politicians warn of crackdowns, and bans, and increased penalties, and all the rhetoric that has long accompanied the failed, and fatal, prohibitionist approach to drug regulation. We know that under this approach, more young people will die than if pill testing is allowed. But inexplicably, the deliberate decision of politicians and police to take an approach that kills more people is not a major scandal.
Is it because those people are young? Is our war-on-young-people mentality, in which they are punished economically for the crime of not being Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, so great it extends to being willing to let them die? It is because the issue carries the stigma of drug use? As if people over 30 never took illicit drugs, and consumed legal drugs, in far greater and excessive levels when they were young, or continue to do so now. Is it because politicians fear the wrath of influential right-wingers? Even some of those think prohibition has failed.
No matter the reason, the outcome is clear: young people continue to die, families continue to suffer the agony of losing a child, a brother or sister, friends have to attend the funeral of people with their lives ahead of them. All for nothing; these are senseless deaths the chances of which can be significantly reduced, at little expense, on a sound empirical basis. The policymakers who refuse to do so have blood on their hands.
Do we have any more facts as to the cause of death before you make the ridiculous claim that the deceased was killed by politicians?
Of course the police and dog squad running about intimidating young people into downing all their drugs at once for fear of being caught has nothing at all to do with people dying at music festivals. You have to ask yourself why even such extreme policing (ie using ineffective drug dogs* as intimidation and as excuses for invasive searches) doesn’t stop deaths from drug use.
You’d think they’d have changed their tune after so many years of failed drug policy but no, still the same old “morality” issue… “drugs are bad,OK, except for the ones that WE take”
Trials have shown that drug dogs have a 70 percent failure rate when searching for drugs… even worse than random…. that takes some doing. They are at best, an excuse for cops to do invasive searches… and for intimidation of young people.
Exactly. At first blush, it looks as though he died because a) someone illegally sold him drugs, and b) he stupidly and illegally took them.
Seems to me that a lot of people are dying because a) someone legally sold them drugs, and b) they stupidly though legally took them. The irrelevant difference being that for some reason the drugs, being alcoholic drinks, have not been legislated to be illegal while other drugs with similar effects are criminalised. The difference is irrelevant because death is death, whichever drug you choose. I’m not making a case here for banning alcohol. It can’t be done. I think it has been shown, for example in Portugal, that there might be fewer lives destroyed by controlling, rather than criminalising, other drugs.
Well over a million Iraqis have died because at first blush, it looks as though a) someone wanted to wage a criminal and illegal invasion and b) your hero John Howard stupidly and illegally agreed.
Naturally your hero John remains a hero to you and others, while you smear individuals who have harmed no-one else. Exactly.
Seems to me that a lot of people are dying because a) someone legally sold them substances, and b) they foolishly though legally took them. The irrelevant difference being that for some reason the substances, being alcoholic drinks, have not been legislated to be illegal while other substances with similar effects are criminalised. The difference is irrelevant because death is death, whichever drug you choose. I’m not making a case here for banning alcohol. It can’t be done. I think it has been shown, for example in Portugal, that there might be fewer lives destroyed by controlling, rather than criminalising, other substances.
Same old conservative drug policies- can’t pursue harm minimisation, can only pursue throwing the book at people.
Almost the exact same arguments apply as with injecting rooms. “It will encourage drug use” vs “People ARE taking drugs and we have to try and reduce the death rates, because clearly the risk of death isn’t working as a deterrent”. And “we don’t want to be responsible if a junkie uses the safe injecting room/uses a tested pill and then still dies”. Because it’s the same arguments, they’ve already been run and solved, and yet here we are.
The music at these shows is so shit that only serious mind bending and sensory overloading drugs can justify buying a ticket. Sooo, cops should be handing out hooch at the front gate to let everybody puff their way to quiet and relaxing oblivion.
It’s funny coz it’s true.
Yeah, but it ain’t hooch and it ain’t ecstasy.
The music isn’t that bad and in essence tends more to the tribal, the heavy beats and dancing bringing on a mental state equivalent to trance in a group setting even without drugs. It’s their communion.
Drugs at dance parties have been happening since the 80’s, and if you want to go back to baby boomer era, it is no secret that the beatles, rolling stones used lots of “hooch” for inspiration. But I expect that is “good” music to you, stuff played on boring endless rota on commercial radio stations.
And I expect that there are quite a few hyppocritical pollies, in NSW and Canberra, who have just conveniently forgetten that era of their lives when….
Most commercials these days use pulsing dance music, and if their is a toddler in the room guess what, they jump up and dance, and love it!
Not about the music, you just ain’t with it!
And more to the point. Recreational drugs have been regularly consumed with music since the 60’s.
The vigorous attempts now to “control” them are really about Gladys and Scottie’s creeping social conservatism plan for all Australians.
They have almost completely ruined Sydney’s reputation as a nightlife city.
Suppose we can all get high on happy clappin’ with Scottie
Surely you know that it’s the youngest generation’s duty to piss off previous generations with their music! 🙂
The continuing willful ignorance of people like Gladys Berejiklian and Troy Grant and their pig headed refusal to acknowledge the expertise of our world class public health professionals is dire. This is a public health matter; refusing to make policy and establish programs based on that means more of our young people dying and more grieving families and friends. Shame on those responsible.
I don’t think it’s too soon or too harsh to suggest the young man be held responsible for his own death. Neither the politicians nor the police appear to have forced the drugs on him. Perhaps further education on the dangers of drugs should occur? Blaming others is an easy way out.
My guess is that like me, most of the poster’s on this piece are well past 19 years of age. Have none of you ever done anything dangerous and thoughtless as a young person? Common humanity and a civil society cares for and tries to protect their young. No wonder kids are feeling pissed off with us.
Precisely.
When I’ve “done anything dangerous and thoughtless”, when young or now I’ve never blamed anyone else for my choice.
Callum isn’t in a position to advise us whether he blames others or himself.
Billygus, the politicians have a means to prevent death but do nothing about it. It’s called a sin of omission, not helping someone you have the power to help, knowing they are putting themselves in harm’s way.
Morality and ethics don’t absolve you of responsibility, even if you wish to argue that you did nothing wrong. If there is a Maker, it is these sins as much as the sins of commission that you will have to answer for.
Lucky for you that there probably isn’t a Maker that you will have to meet.
As a society do we want to save young idiots from themselves or are we so callous as to let them die and say “let that be a lesson to you” to a dead person?
Personally I’m for saving people. What about you?