Loading summary
Transcript49 lines
- [00:01]
A
Hi, I'm Dr. Stan Steindl. Welcome to Compassion in a T shirt. Nicole Lee is an international leader in alcohol and drug policy and practice. She's director at Australia's leading alcohol and drug specialist consultancy, 360 Edge. She's professor at National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University and she's managing director at the registered charity hello Sunday Morning, which aims to help people and the world change their relationship with alcohol one Sunday at a time. Nicole has advised governments both here in Australia and internationally and provided advice to the World Health Organization and the United nations office on drugs and crime. And she's prolific in her writing for the Conversation where she distills the scientific evidence and policies, especially around harm reduction in a way that's easy to understand and comprehend. I've known Nicole for nearly 30 years and her contribution to society and the world through her work in the alcohol and drug area is really quite remarkable. And so I bring you Professor Nicole Lee. Well, today I'm speaking with Professor Nicole Lee. Nicole, welcome to Compassion in a T shirt.
- [01:29]
B
Thanks for having me on, Stan.
- [01:32]
A
You've said before that harm reduction in the alcohol and drug context, I guess, but probably in, in other health contexts as well, is what happens when you take judgment and moralizing out of the equation and just look after people. And I really found that very insightful, kind of moving really, that, that's, that's kind of what it's all about. But. So tell us more about harm reduction and looking after people, I guess from, from your point of view.
- [02:04]
B
Yeah, that's a really good question. Yeah, I think, I think most people think about harm reduction as a set of strategies and I think a set of things that we do to reduce harms and it definitely, it is that, but in my mind it's a bit more than that. I think it's a mindset. It's a mindset that tries to put aside any view about drug use and only focuses on what's best for that person. So whether you think people should be using drugs or not, if you take that approach, you can still practice harm reduction. So in the end your only interest then is to reduce harms and you really can't practice harm reduction. Well, unless you put your own views about drugs aside. Because as soon as your own views kind of get in the mix, then you're necessarily introducing some element of judgment and harm reduction. The idea of harm reduction is judgment free. So it's kind of, it's actually very aligned with things like compassion focused therapy and also motivational interviewing and acceptance and Commitment therapy in that way because it, it's working with the person who's using illicit or other drugs. Values, not your values.
- [03:32]
A
Yeah, that's, it's a sort of a hard thing to do, isn't it? I know that Paul Gilbert with compassion focused therapy, he sees compassion as a motivation. It's about a sensitivity to suffering in self and others and a commitment to try to, to alleviate it. But, but one of the qualities I guess of the, the compassionate person is, is this non judgment thing, you know, being able to, it's a kind of a no blame, no shaming kind of approach. And yet it's really, it's, it is one of the more challenging aspects of it as well, isn't it? You know, to be able to well firstly be aware of our values or our points of view, our judgments, you know, and, and some of the more unconscious judgments or biases and how we. What, what are your thoughts there? Like how does one try to actually embody that, that sort of more non judgmental approach?
- [04:28]
B
Yeah, it is very hard. It is it, it and it happens like it falls down at both ends, that kind of prohibitionist end. And also people who try to practice harm reduction but who encourage drug use as well. So, and so we've all got biases and we've all got kind of an element of judgment in us and it really takes a very mindful approach to put those aside. I think in like in a very literal sense harm reduction is helpful rather than harmful as Paul Gilbert says. I mean it has to be the opposite of harmful. Right. Because otherwise it's not harm reduction. But the other thing is that a kind of more judgmental approach like the, the kind of prohibition approach increases stigma and shame and blame and it's very self centered rather than other centered. And I think that many prohibitionists really actually believe that they are taking an approach to prevent and alleviate suffering from others as Paul Gilbert says. But it's done through blaming and shaming and we know that doesn't work by any measure. We know that prohibition hasn't been shown to reduce net harms so that it needs both sides of that, an intent to prevent and alleviate suffering, but also reducing stigma and shame and self stigma as well. Like a lot of people think that the opposite of harm reduction is abstinence, but it's, I think it's actually prohibition.
- [06:34]
A
I was just going to say, would you mind sort of defining that a bit prohibition when you're referring to that, what are you referring to there?
- [06:43]
B
Yeah, it's the approach and the attitude and the approach and the attitude that people should not be using drugs at all. And so prohibitionists will try anything they can to stop people from using drugs because they really believe that many of them at least, really believe that they are doing that to prevent and alleviate the suffering of others. Abstinence, on the other hand, is the choice of someone to not use drugs or alcohol. And that's a different concept altogether, because if you're taking a harm reduction approach, that's their choice to do that. And that's really consistent with that more compassionate approach.
- [07:32]
A
Yes. Prohibition seems to be more about sort of imposing rules, imposing things onto people, and almost with a punitive element to it that if you break the rules, there's potentially punishment. I mean, the prohibition, I actually don't know much about it, to be honest, but the Prohibition era, I guess, in the States, you know, is that. That kind of is emblematic of what you're saying there with. With what prohibition would be.
- [07:59]
B
Yeah. And also our approach to illicit drugs in Australia and most of the world, where we've got very strict rules about it and it's heavily policed, but in fact, in. In most. In a net sense, in a kind of net harm sense, the biggest harms associated with illicit drugs at the moment is because they're illegal and prohibited. The fact that they're illegal increases stigma. People come away with criminal records for maybe, you know, occasional, potentially occasional use of drugs. And so by any measure, it hasn't really shown to reduce net harms. So for me, that's not just morally problematic, but it's really. The whole idea of prohibition is grounded in stigma. And that is really well demonstrated, as you said, in the 1920s. Yeah. With the prohibition of alcohol that came about through at least a decade, probably more of the temperance movement who believed that alcohol was evil and the people who drank alcohol were morally corrupt. They lobbied very, very hard for a decade or two to get to that point where the government in the U.S. particularly banned alcohol. And it did nothing really to reduce harms. It definitely reduced the amount of drinking that went on, but it created a flourishing black market, it created a flourishing kind of organized criminal element. And people didn't stop drinking, they just made moonshine and. Which is not controlled. You don't really know what's in it. You don't know how strong it is, and people getting much sicker from it because, you know, it would be 80% proof instead of 40%. So, yeah, and it's a really good example. And it's exactly what we've done with illicit drugs in Australia and around the world as well. And that's one of the biggest dangers of illicit drugs is that they're illegal and we don't know what's in them. And that's why people have, mostly why people have ill effects from it. But I think the more important thing is that it's created this huge stigma around people who use illicit drugs similar to the stigma that was created around alcohol in the 20s.
- [10:49]
A
It's actually as good scientist practitioners that we are, you know, the experience of the 20s is like a little ABA experiment, isn't it? You know, where we were actually able to sort of see, you know, like what happens with a strict kind of new application of prohibition. And really the, the results were a whole range of kind of perhaps unexpected or perhaps expected sort of negative consequences that made matters a bit worse really in some ways. And it's striking to think that you're bringing the parallel there to today when certain illicit drugs are under prohibition. Basically they're illegal and so on. And there's really sort of negative consequences actually to that. I was just going to check with you because you mentioned the temperance movement and you mentioned the moralizing and judgment. There does seem to be a lot of stigma and shaming in this area. And I guess it feels like it has a long history too. I guess across the centuries even there's been views about alcohol or drugs that, you know, that it's, it's, it's non virtuous or something and that somehow it's evil. And perhaps there's this long history of moral judgment there. I mean, what can you tell us about that? I mean, what are the mechanisms there or where's all that coming from?
- [12:30]
B
Well, I'm sure it's like a super complicated mix. I think, you know, aside from the alcohol prohibition, at some point in the, you know, the past caffeine, coffee has been banned because it was an evil drug as well. And now, you know, I have a coffee every morning and so that those kind of moral judgments change over time for sure. But I think for in the current times, for particularly for illicit drugs, but also for people who are risky drinking or dependent drinking. I think from a psychological point of view, one of the really key things is that we have a tendency to attribute other people's behaviour to their character rather than understanding any situational or historic factors. So one end we know that for example, a whole load of a very large proportion of people who end up having problems with alcohol or other drugs have quite severe trauma histories or neurodiversity or intergenerational drug use in the family or some other contextual thing that has sent them down a particular path. And at the other end, you know, if we see a person using drugs, we have a tendency to equate drug use with problem use problem. But 70% of people who use alcohol or illicit drugs don't have a problem with them. They just use them occasionally. And so there's also that kind of stigma brought into people who are just recreational users who are probably using very little, very infrequently, and probably stop after a very short period of time. But in that time, they're being kind of bombarded with this moral view because. Because we tend to think it's because there's something flawed in their character rather than thinking about the situational factors. And I think the other thing is that our society generally is built on these, what you might call shared narratives of what's moral and what's immoral. And that's strongly perpetrated through news media, particularly like most people get their information about drug use from the media because most people don't know someone who has an alcohol problem or an illicit drug problem. But also, you know, TV and movies and even the education system kind of builds on this idea of what we consider moral and immoral. And I do think that for some people, there's really genuine concern about the impact of illicit drugs on individuals and families and society, but seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the psychology of stigma and shaming and punishment. And we know as psychologists that they aren't good reinforcers of behavior. So if you are expecting someone to change, blaming them and punishing them and creating stigma around it isn't a good way to do it. And often when I talk about this stuff in the media or elsewhere, there's always a handful of people that actively advocate for increasing stigma because they really believe that it's actually going to prevent or stop people from taking drugs or drinking at risky levels. But the reality is that we know that that's just not the case.
- [16:22]
A
I suppose shaming and shame, I guess, as a human emotion kind of did evolve in some way, didn't. Perhaps even as an adaptive kind of a mechanism, it was something that perhaps hundreds of thousands or more years ago, it would help to manage things. It helped to manage the group and perhaps keep everybody together and working cooperatively and in the direction for the tribe or those sorts of things. But we're a little bit beyond that now, where it's perhaps it's no longer having an adaptive sort of a role, but rather seems to, you know, kind of perpetuate things. In fact, the shame itself ends up being a part of what's perpetuating the, the harmful behaviors, maybe of, of drinking or, or other drugs. And so in a funny sort of way, the people who are interested in. In more stigma or more shame, you know, it's, it's probably not their fault either because they're on the. Coming from this, you know, kind of evolved, long evolved kind of history of that human mechanism. But it's awareness or understanding or being able to sort of step back from that human instinct and perhaps understand the evidence and what works and that sort of thing. And some of those misunderstandings are perhaps what remains behind the shaming.
- [17:54]
B
Yeah, that's exactly right.
- [17:57]
A
The other side of it too, of course, is that the person who might be drinking or using their. It's also not their fault really, because they're also dealing with a tricky brain and various life experiences that perhaps put them on a path. I guess where harm reduction comes in is that it's not their fault, but it is their responsibility. That old kind of distinction there. You know, we're not wanting to shame or blame, and at the very same time we're wanting to find ways that they can also take responsibility for their health and wellbeing and that sort of thing. Would that be a fair way to conceptualize it for you?
- [18:37]
B
Yeah, I think that the other element in there is the element of choice and people, you know, we all make risky decisions every day. We get in a car, we cross the road. I, I tend to, you know, Melbourne's a very forgiving city for pedestrians. And if I cross the road in the middle of a busy street, I guarantee everyone will stop and let me through. But my son is very, a very strong rule follower and he will always go to the lights and cross to the lights. And I'm like, don't worry about that. So, you know, we're making risky decisions like that every day. And I choose to do that because I understand the risk and that applies to alcohol and drug use as well. That if you. There might be an element of you, us, society, wanting you to be responsible for your own health, but also you need to choose which risks you take and how much health you want to. You want really, and how extensive you. What you're prepared to do to get as healthy as you want.
- [19:55]
A
Okay, yeah. The sort of respecting choices. I mean, I can, I can sort of imagine the other side saying, you know, yeah, but why should everyone else have to pay for that? You know, it would be perhaps a reflex response there, you know, why should everyone else have to pay for their choices to be not as healthy, you know, or something like that. What, what would your response be there?
- [20:17]
B
That's a really common thing that people say to me. And, but we never say that about people with heart disease or diabetes, you know, type 2 diabetes or, you know, those things which are also lifestyle chronic diseases that are also preventable and that are also, you know, people have the ability to, to reduce the impact of. We never, I've never heard anyone say, oh, you know, that that person that's just had a heart attack should have, you know, we shouldn't treat them, they shouldn't go to hospital because they brought it on themselves.
- [21:03]
A
Yeah.
- [21:04]
B
Even though there's a parallel there that, you know, they exercised and ate better and didn't drink as much and didn't smoke. They may not have got to that point.
- [21:14]
A
Yes, there certainly is sort of weight shaming and you know, other other sort of health. Health behaviors. I suppose that that can cop some of that as well. But, but yeah, the idea is that when people experience a health kind of situation or an ill health situation, as a society, we want to be there to, to kind of help them and, and to.
- [21:42]
B
Yeah, and I, I think a lot of, you know, weight shaming probably is in that. In a similar bucket to alcohol and drug use. And it's a very moralizing kind of area where people who are overweight are kind of shamed for being overweight. But, but many people aren't really concerned about their health there. It's much more moralizing. Moralizing, judgmental point of view that you shouldn't be fat.
- [22:15]
A
Yeah, gotcha. Actually, that, that really, that, that little light bulb for me, I can see the difference now that the, it's, the moralizing isn't really related to perhaps directly, although it might be touted as is sometimes that it's not necessarily related to concern for the person or concern for their health. It's coming from a different place. It's coming from. Yes. A moralizing judgment about character, which is what you said right at the start. And that's the difference there, really. Yeah, that's helpful. You've written a lot actually, but you, you have many articles in the conversation and I'll actually be putting some of the links to some of those articles in the description because you, you really provide a, make a lot of sense there with, with those articles. One of the ones you wrote about was kind of the concept of tough love. And, and, and this is an interesting one. Even on my, on this YouTube channel sometimes I'll, I'll get sort of angry comments from people about, you know, tough love, you know, or something like that. And, and it's interesting to see what people have to say in the comments. But it seems like tough love kind of feels tempting. Maybe it's in a similar bucket to the moralizing and judgment and so on, or maybe it is more about an actual concern for health and well being. But yeah, what's tough love? What are the dangers there? I suppose and what are the alternatives?
- [23:54]
B
Yeah, I think you're right. It does really come from that same place of stigma and judgment, of moralising and, but you know, again, I think many people believe that it is the right thing to do. If you shame someone then they're likely to change and we just know that, that it just doesn't work. So what tough love is is really treating someone kind of harshly or firmly with the intention of reducing unwanted behaviour. So even just by that definition you can see it's about my views about what that person should do and then that's where the judgment and moralising comes in. So one of some of the common things, some of the common examples are like I'm not going to pick you up from a party because you're drunk and I told you not to drink. Or you might lock them out of the house if they don't go to rehab. You can't stay in my house unless you go get treatment or refusing food, refusing money so they can buy food if they're still using drugs. And, and all of those things come from a place of most, for most families, from a place of concern. But a misguided approach to the, to the situation.
- [25:25]
A
Yes, I think some people, yes, it's coming from concern, it's perhaps misguided and then they might lean more into the tough than they do, lean into the love, if you know what I mean.
- [25:38]
B
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. And the problem from a psychological perspective is that it's, it. Most of the tough love actions are humiliating and demeaning and they can create feelings of guilt and shame. And we know that when people feel guilty and shamed that they're actually less likely to make changes. They kind of dig their heels in and protect their space. And it can also increase stress and if someone's using alcohol or other drugs because they're trying to, you know, manage uncomfortable feelings, it just creates more uncomfortable feelings that then they have to use more. So it's just like, it's a. It's a, you know, maybe it works on occasion, but it, it just doesn't generally help people. It's that idea that, you know, that old idea that you have to hit rock bottom before you can. Yeah. Go through recovery. And the idea of tough love is to like, help them hit rock bottom first and, and, you know, it's kind of the opposite of harm reduction. Then it becomes the opposite of harm reduction.
- [27:00]
A
It's. It's sort of almost. Yes. Well, I don't know about consciously intended, but the, the idea there is that if they experience more harm, then they'll be motivated to change. But we know that it really just creates feelings of shame and so on, and that's. That tends to motivate people away from change and to kind of hide themselves away and to kind of continue coping in the way that they always have.
- [27:28]
B
Yeah, that's exactly right. And it really comes. It often comes from that moral view about drugs as well, that drugs are bad and you shouldn't be doing drugs. But like a really great piece of advice one of my colleagues gave me. She's a. She has two of her children have had drug problems in the past and mental health problems, and she provides support for other families who are going through the same thing as her job now. And she said, long time to go to me, which I found really helpful. The advice that she gives to families is do what you would do if drugs were not involved. Like if your child had depression or anxiety or you wouldn't withhold money, you wouldn't lock them out of the house, you wouldn't refuse to speak to them if they didn't seek help. You would take a much more compassionate approach.
- [28:26]
A
I mean, we sometimes think about compassionate assertiveness and I mean, where might kind of boundaries, you know, still fit there for families, you know, where they might have a sense of perhaps even just what feels okay or not okay or establishing certain boundaries. Is, is that, is that, does that still feel feasible for you, that there can be those sort of boundaries?
- [28:53]
B
Absolutely. And that's, that's actually the antidote to tough love. It's.
- [28:57]
A
Right.
- [28:58]
B
It's what we recommend families do to. But, you know, that can be done with the person who was at the centre of it, who might be using drugs just in the same way that we would do it in any other setting where we, you know, trying to agree on behaviours. And that might, you know, we all might agree in a family, we all might agree that we don't want drug use in the house, so you can't use in the house. And if everyone agrees on that and there's. And the person does use in the house, there's an agreed consequence to that. That kind of boundary setting is a really great way to protect the needs of the family, but also not shame and discriminate against the person using drugs. And that is, that is, as you said, that leans more towards the love side than the side. Yeah, yeah.
- [30:05]
A
It's a sort of, it's almost a, a tone thing. Well, you sort of said mindset, I think it was at the start as, or an attitude or it's kind of, it's the quality behind it. I suppose that's kind of key there.
- [30:18]
B
Yeah. And you know, any kind of health, mental health issue that someone has in the family, it's all, it's. It always impacts on the family in some ways and there's always an element of negotiation in trying to deal with it. You know, if you've got a, a young adult who is going through a tough time or experiencing depression or anxiety, you as a parent, you might increase your parenting of that person even though they're, you know, they're a young adult. And that's this, you know, it's the same kind of thing with, with drugs as well. You, you do make changes, you do make adjustments and you do make compromises. But those compromises are agreed on within the family. That's the best approach. The approach of tough love is that I'm setting my boundaries and I'm applying them to you and you don't get any say in them. That, that just doesn't work.
- [31:20]
A
Yeah. Again, the imposing of things rather than the collaborating and respecting. But knowing that respecting choices might also mean that the person, you know, there are certain natural consequences there that, that we've kind of agreed on in, in that more sort of collaborative and loving way. It's so tricky. It's. Oh, sorry. It's so tricky, isn't it? Because, you know, quite often, like families, for example, really do come from a place of loving the person. You know, they do love them, they are concerned for them, they want to help. But sometimes it just sort of misfires. We sometimes talk about the notion of kind of the near enemies of compassion, which is where the person is acting in a way that kind of looks like compassion. It might even be coming from that more compassionate motivation. But the, the effect of that is, is sort of to be harmful instead of helpful, I suppose, or in some way, you know, it might Cause harm. Would you say that there are any examples there where families, you know, they're sort of near enemies of compassion in a way. They're doing things kind of thinking they want to be helpful, but it's just missing the mark.
- [32:41]
B
So the tough love approach is definitely a kind of near enemy to compassion. And that idea that you, that it's something wrong with the person. What tends to happen is people, they apply a tough love approach, it's not working and so they double down on it because they think it's something wrong with that person, not something wrong with the approach that they're taking. And you know, if you step back and if you, I guess if you really believe that what you're doing is the right thing to do, then you don't look at, you don't reflect on your part in that process. That makes sense.
- [33:32]
A
Yeah, gotcha. That's, it's, you know, self awareness is, is really kind of key, isn't it? I suppose with, with when we're trying to be helpful, sometimes we can have a bit of a more automatic helpfulness that's not so helpful. And the key is to have that ability to be aware of oneself reflecting on it. It's almost a deliberative practice thing where we're just sort of trying something. But then if it's not working or if it's not as helpful as we'd hope, then we might pivot to something else. But people sometimes kind of double down thinking that they're really. That there's something wrong with that other person and therefore they need more of this. The other example that I, that just came to mind as well is, I suppose this is a little bit the other end of the spectrum. Is it you've spoken before about enabling as well, being a kind of a. I suppose that's where a person, a family member might really feel for their, their relative who's, who's struggling with, with drinking or drugs. And so they try to ease the suffering by giving more in a way, you know, rather than being more and more strict. Would that, would you see that in a similar near enemy of compassion type thing?
- [34:49]
B
Yes, it definitely is. Because if you think about enabling, I mean, I just say to people enabling is not really a thing because you never know whether you've enabled someone in that, in that sense until afterwards. You don't know whether you've helped them or you've made things worse until you've done it. Right. And so there's no, really, for me, there's no such thing as enabling. You just need to do what you think is right. If you put yourself out of the situation and your focus is on helping the other person, enabling choice and autonomy, then you'll probably get it right. And it might look to other people like you're enabling them. But if it works, then it works. I just think of, you might remember quite a long time ago now, the footballer Ben Cousins went through a very public kind of drug use problem and treatment. And at one point his dad was very public in the way that they supported him. And, and he said in the media that at one time he, he actually took Ben Cousins to his dealer to buy drugs because he didn't want him to kind of go there and get into more trouble and, you know, kind of use drugs and be unsafe. And so he felt like it was the safest thing for him to do to, wasn't going to be able to stop him using the drugs, so took him to, to buy them, watched him use them and made sure that he was safe while he was using them. And many people would say that was enabling, but many other people would say that that's harm reduction as well and that's compassionate, a compassionate approach. So you don't actually know like what appears to be what people label as enabling is not, is not necessarily enabling sometimes. I think it's a really helpful term.
- [37:09]
A
Yeah, sometimes the, the term enable, enabling is sort of a slur from the moralizers. Yeah, sort of. It's a slur against the person in, in the, in the other person's life who's, who's trying to help. And, and so they, they kind of, you know, also cop a little bit of that same stigma and shame.
- [37:34]
B
Yeah, that is a really good point. That that stigma kind of then overflows into the family as well and it impacts the family too.
- [37:43]
A
What would be an example of a harm reduction concept or strategy that sort of is well supported empirically or scientifically, but that, you know, like sort of remains controversial or that you notice gets a lot of pushback when you sort of advocate for that.
- [38:05]
B
Well, there's big, like big public health type of strategies that are, have been or still are controversial. So clean needle programs that was. Yeah, they were started in The, I don't know, 70s or 80s. And I remember I was working in Queensland at the time at a, at a drug and alcohol center that had a clean needle program on the bottom floor and people would come in for their, their needles and police would be waiting at the other end to kind of catch them with drugs on them. And it took a really long time to, for the police and the community to get on board. There was, you know, there was always people protesting outside. It was like. It was fascinating time but really distressing for the people who were using. And it took a really long time for that to be become just a normal thing. You don't really hear about anyone complaining about that anymore because it's really very benign for the rest of the population. And we know that it generally works. The controversy now is probably one of the controversies is drug checking. But we're starting to see. So pill testing, but we're starting to see. Queensland's just introduced an official publicly funded drug checking service, fixed site and in festivals. Decriminalization is a big kind of public health measure. And also the thing that's in the media at the moment is vaping, of course, and as a harm reduction, it's intended as a harm reduction measure, but it's getting all sorts of moral kind of whip up at the moment. But I think at an individual level or a family level or at a friend level, there's also a range of things people might do that as we were just talking about, appear to be enabling that can be controversial to other people but are actually helpful and actually reduce harms.
- [40:34]
A
Yes, it maintains sort of energy as a sector, doesn't it? You know, in terms of, you know, some people really trying to progress with things and create sort of less harm, you know, in society from, from these various choices. And then another group of people who seem to, you know, fight against all of that and sometimes very, very vigorously. I remember working in an alcohol and drug service. I don't know if you were referring as far back as the, the sort of mid-90s, but I suspect you might have been a moment ago, but yeah, yeah, the, the, the local inspector would often just sort of wander over and sort of so, you know, anything to tell us sort of thing and having to. Trying to really keep the, the two. It's a two. I guess there's, I guess there's a policing thing and they're trying to do whatever it is that they're doing and then there's a health kind of a thing and trying to keep those two separate seems useful. But I might, I might even ask you to send me like sort of maybe whether you have certain conversation pieces that talk about, you know, the, the evidence behind those various harm reduction strategies and, and maybe even whether there is a recent, you know, bigger study or meta analysis that kind of talks about the effectiveness there because often people are Interested in reading more about these things? What do you see, like looking forward, I guess, what changes or advancements do you really hope to see in the coming year to be helpful and to help reduce harm here? Maybe in Australia, but internationally as well?
- [42:21]
B
Yeah, look, I think that there's really, there is a move already worldwide to reduce the impact of criminalization of illicit drug use, particularly by regulating drugs better. And I think if that can happen, that will, that has a big impact and a ripple through effect because the fact that illicit drugs particularly are criminalised creates the stigma. It's impossible, it will be impossible to reduce stigma while drugs are still illegal because doesn't matter what you say about, you know, prohibition kind of creating drugs being more dangerous, the answer that many people respond with is still, but they're illegal so people shouldn't be doing them. So decriminalization, regulation, that kind of approach that's already happening, if, if we can expand that and get that right, I think that will have a big impact on harms, on use and on stigma, which are the, the kind of three big things that are problematic with alcohol and other drug use.
- [43:45]
A
Yes, it really is that, that, you know, sort of very important question like what is it that is going to be most helpful? You know, what can I do that will be helpful rather than harmful? And, and there's just this mounting evidence now that really some things that many years ago might be kind of unexpected to people, but it's actually, you know, this is, this is the way to be helpful. Things like decriminalization and regulation and that sort of thing is sort of. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see as the years unfold. But behind all of that, you know, obviously is that compassionate motivation. You do amazing work in this area that you're prolific and you're involved in various organizations and that sort of thing. If people are interested in being in touch or sort of learning more about your work, where could they go to find you?
- [44:45]
B
So, yeah, I actually am a bit crazy at the moment. I'm running two organizations and one of them is called 360Edge, which is a consulting firm. And so we do a lot of support for governments and services to align with best practice. We do a lot of training, do a lot of systems work and advocacy around better systems, including like looking at decriminalization and that kind of thing. And the other organisation, which is a bit more recent is hello Sunday Morning, which is the main kind of program that we have, is a big online community that people can pop into and get support for it's kind of a peer support program to reduce or change your drinking or not change your drinking, just reduce harms from your drinking as well. And I think as you said, I write a lot for the Conversation and there's a lot of lot of my views there as well. So yeah, you can I'm sure you can put the links and such to the Conversation. It's probably a good place to start.
- [46:01]
A
Yeah, no, I'll put the links to each of those both 360Edge and hello Sunday morning and perhaps your page on the Conversation. You are impressively prolific on the Conversation because I've written one or two articles there. But you have really established a great relationship with that particular outlet and it's been very helpful. Well, yeah. Nicole Lee, thank you very much for coming and speaking with me on Compassion in a T shirt.
- [46:37]
B
Thanks, Dan. Good to talk to you.
- [46:39]
A
Thank you.