As a post-script – Tasmania becomes the first jurisdiction to repeal the legal barriers to peer distribution – from 1 July 2015. Congratulations!
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/Bills2015/reprint/6_of_2015.pdf
I bet, if we asked the average Jo Blow on the street, they could not fathom the illegality of peer distribution. It is illegal in all states and territories for someone (unless they are authorised because they work in a recognised service) to pass on a sterile piece of injecting equipment to someone who needs it. This means that lovers cannot pass on equipment to each other, concerned parents cannot pass on equipment – there is no “good Samaritan” ruling that applies, for example, in some jurisdictions for the supply of naloxone for overdose.
This crazy situation would be a silly anachronistic dinner party joke (like it is still required in some US states to walk before an automobile waving a red flag to warn unsuspecting pedestrians or horse-riding people). This would be amusing, except that this law has been used as part of a manslaughter conviction in NSW. Among other places and accounts, the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Blood Borne Viruses and STIs (MACBBVS – of which I was a member) raised this as one of numerous legal barriers to sensible expansion of NSP services.
This is the situation taken up in a paper led by the very fabulous Kari Lancaster and Kate Seear. While both Kari and Kate have training in the law, the question we ask is broader – what happens when we construct passing on of sterile equipment as illegal? How does that construct people who inject? This paper uses the framework provided by the Australian post-structuralist theorist, Carol Bacchi, to examine these laws.
While there are practical programs aiming to redress this crazy situation, the broader discourse cannot be ignored. The overall message is that people tho inject drugs are, under these laws, definitely not seen as part of the “prevention solution”. These laws portray people who inject drugs as irresponsible and untrustworthy. While we may see these laws as unhelpful to public health, or just plain “weird”, the effects of these on people who inject drugs cannot be ignored. All research in this area shows that altruistic motivations are the primary drives of peer distribution of sterile equipment to people who who otherwise may not have access. To punish people, or provide the possibility of punishment, undermines their contributions to prevention efforts, and on a broader reading, undermines their status as “citizens”.
[watch out for descriptions of pilot studies in NSW regarding easing of peer distribution laws]
This paper:
http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959%2815%2900167-X/abstract
The work of Carol Bacchi that inspired this paper:
Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? Sydney: Pearson Education.
Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2010). Approaches to gender mainstreaming: What’s the problem represented to be? In C. Bacchi & J. Eveline (Eds.), Mainstreaming politics: gendering practices and feminist theory (pp. 111-138). Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.
The MACBBVS Legal Working Group papers:
Click to access September%202013%20legal%20issues%20consolidated%20papers%20final.pdf
carlatreloar 