DHB candidates survey
Keywords:
- DHB
- drug
- health
- Seattle
- programme
Canterbury DHB candidates might like to respond to the 'claim' that a
significant percentage of the health vote (70% according to the National Health
Service in the UK) is expended in alcohol related contingencies and this
'preventable' administrative and environmental burden falls under the brief of
'HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH" participants, including CDHB and CCC.
And if so... do said DHB candidates bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge any
merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?
(details re:Seattle' institutional, civic and civil support can be found at
http://www.blair4mayor.com )
sig: "Mayor Blair" Anderson,
[who officially and at the request of 200 participating organisations and
'sponsors' in Christchurch including but not limited to CCC and Chair of
Healthy Christchurch, Mayor Garry Moore, CEO Community and Public Health, Evon
Currie, and others, is directed, absent ANY evidence or robust due process to
live in UNHEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH for the societaly disruptive proselytising^ of
'health promotion, and the removal of identified impediments under Ottawa
Charter principles'.]
Non-Candidate readers may wish to forward this email to standing candidates for
comment.
^according to internal Healthy ChCh memo widely distrubuted throughout
Christchurch.
see attached image "map" of where CDHB/CCC sponsors got it all wrong.
significant percentage of the health vote (70% according to the National Health
Service in the UK) is expended in alcohol related contingencies and this
'preventable' administrative and environmental burden falls under the brief of
'HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH" participants, including CDHB and CCC.
And if so... do said DHB candidates bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge any
merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?
(details re:Seattle' institutional, civic and civil support can be found at
http://www.blair4mayor.com )
sig: "Mayor Blair" Anderson,
[who officially and at the request of 200 participating organisations and
'sponsors' in Christchurch including but not limited to CCC and Chair of
Healthy Christchurch, Mayor Garry Moore, CEO Community and Public Health, Evon
Currie, and others, is directed, absent ANY evidence or robust due process to
live in UNHEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH for the societaly disruptive proselytising^ of
'health promotion, and the removal of identified impediments under Ottawa
Charter principles'.]
Non-Candidate readers may wish to forward this email to standing candidates for
comment.
^according to internal Healthy ChCh memo widely distrubuted throughout
Christchurch.
see attached image "map" of where CDHB/CCC sponsors got it all wrong.
Unhealthy Chch indeed. And there are more uses for medpot than that Blair
and anyone else interested, see http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/home.htm
What Seattle have managed is great.
and anyone else interested, see http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/home.htm
What Seattle have managed is great.
On 9/29/07, 'Mayor Blair' Anderson <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> Canterbury DHB candidates might like to respond to the 'claim' that a
> significant percentage of the health vote (70% according to the National
> Health Service in the UK) is expended in alcohol related contingencies and
> this 'preventable' administrative and environmental burden falls under the
> brief of 'HEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH" participants, including CDHB and CCC.
>
> And if so... do said DHB candidates bring ANY expertise to the table
> surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
> Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge
> any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
> exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
> these pressing issues?
>
> (details re:Seattle' institutional, civic and civil support can be found
> at http://www.blair4mayor.com )
>
> sig: "Mayor Blair" Anderson,
>
> [who officially and at the request of 200 participating organisations and
> 'sponsors' in Christchurch including but not limited to CCC and Chair of
> Healthy Christchurch, Mayor Garry Moore, CEO Community and Public Health,
> Evon Currie, and others, is directed, absent ANY evidence or robust due
> process to live in UNHEALTHY CHRISTCHURCH for the societaly disruptive
> proselytising^ of 'health promotion, and the removal of identified
> impediments under Ottawa Charter principles'.]
>
> Non-Candidate readers may wish to forward this email to standing
> candidates for comment.
>
>
> ^according to internal Healthy ChCh memo widely distrubuted throughout
> Christchurch.
>
> see attached image "map" of where CDHB/CCC sponsors got it all wrong.
>
> Canterbury Public Issues Forum now contains the following file
>
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/file/1862-2007-09-29T003904Z
> Name: conditionsmap_380.jpg
> Tags: "CCC, CDHB, proselytising, health promotion."
> Type: image/pjpeg
> Size: 31KB
>
>
> All the files that have been added to Canterbury Public Issues Forum can
> be viewed at
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/files
>
>
> Blair Anderson
> Kerrs Reach/Wainoni, Christchurch
> Info about 'Mayor Blair' Anderson:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/blairanderson
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/3ZfTyREKBN3GfDmZDZaTIt
> -----------------------------------------
> To post, send your message to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
> in subject line and send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
>
> More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
>
> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
>
> > And if so... do said DHB candidates bring ANY expertise to the table
> > surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
> > Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR
> acknowledge
> > any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities
> programme
> > exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed
> themselves to
> > these pressing issues?
Get yardley to ask that question to the DHB candidates !
> > And if so... do said DHB candidates bring ANY expertise to the table
> > surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
> > Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR
> acknowledge
> > any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities
> programme
> > exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed
> themselves to
> > these pressing issues?
Get yardley to ask that question to the DHB candidates !
Knowing that no all candidates are on this forum, I thought that it would be
inappropriate to judge the candidates by their silence in this forum. So I
emailed them all (those emails that I had), and this was the response that I
had
RICHARD BEDDIE: Thanks for the email, and very good topic. Apologies for the
delay in replying - I have been away overseas for the last 5 days.
I am standing very much on a "wellness/prevention" platform - this is where my
expertise is .
Alcohol, drugs and smoking are all excellent examples of areas that prevention
is not only CHEAPER than treatment of the effects, but desirable from a
public /social outcome point of view.
I have outlined my general ideas on my web site - www.richardbeddie.co.nz.
I believe there needs to be a substantial increase into ensuring EFFECTIVE
prevention programs are put into place in all these areas (and several others -
including type II diabetes, which will cripple the health system within 30
years if its growth is not reversed).
We also don't need to re-invent the wheel, so exploring existing programs that
are effective should be part of the solution (while I am not aware of the
details of the Seattle's program, if this works, we should give serious
consideration to it!)
Feel free to contact me if you would like any further info.
DAVID MORRELL: Thanks for your email.
Whilst City Missioner & CEO at Christchurch City Mission I introduced a
non-medical Detoxification Programme and established a centre for it in what is
now known as Thorpe House. This was (& remains) partially funded by the DHB.
This was a new concept at the time, and although it had the support of the two
successive senior medical consultants in the addictions field at Hilmorton
Hospital, it was quite a battle to get the model established and accepted -
which it now is.
The Thorpe House residential programme we subsequently extended by the addition
of a mobile home detoxification worker on DHB funding.
The non-medical detoxification system implemented at Thorpe was copied from a
Canadian system used by the health services in Ontario. I arranged to see the
Toronto units whilst in North America on study leave in 1988.
I subsequently established a Women's Addictions Programme in another house
across the road from the City Mission - also funded by the DHB. Canda has done
some very innovative thinking in the health sphere and I would be glad to hear
more of the Seattle scheme you mention - I see no need to re-invent the wheel
and have been equally happy for others to borrow from anything we have done
here.
PETER STOCKS: I do not believe that a blog site is the best forum to debate the
issues raised by Blair because it is, by its very nature, restrictive in
content and breadth of discussion and it is limited in reach and variety of
input. Blair's reference to the Seattle experiment and to the liberalisation
of drugs in the Netherlands might fit in their social context but it does not
necessarily follow that it will fit ours. It is clear that extensive and
informed debate (Blair is obviously well read on the topic) is required which
considers all aspects relevant to the social, economic, political and
demographic spheres of our society. It will be an amalgam of these topics that
will engender open public debate and from here political change will follow,
albeit at a slow pace.
What do I bring to the debate if elected to the CDHB? An independent mind that
is not biased toward the views of the establishment. This is probably the best
you can hope for in such a contentious debate.
When I asked What evidence do you have that it wouldn't work here ? Peter wrote
back:
I didn't say that it would not work here but rather just because it might work
in one culture/sub-culture (common western links aside) does not necessarily
mean it will work in another. The answer to this question will be born out of
social, economic, political and demographic study and a cultural comparative
analysis (no doubt this has been done already). My problem is that I am not
well read enough on this particular subject, at this stage, to offer a
considered and learned opinion on the matter. All I can say is that I am open
to the debate because I have not been closed to it by the subjective views of
those with interests and, because I am independent, I am not driven down any
particular path of reasoning.
STEVE WRIGHT: As I am not a sitting member of the Board, I have not seen the
"Drug Policy" that you refer to however I have strong views regarding the
misuse of any form of drugs. In regards to the Sister City aspect, I have been
a member of the Kurashiki Sister City Committee for about 4 or 5 years and I am
well aware of what we can learn from our sister Cities, esp Seattle who have
taken innovative approaches on many Law and Order and Community Health issues
that we may well look more closely at.
Alister James: Yes to the first question but no to the second. I have an
interest in drug policy issues as a youth advocate involved in and in the
establishment of the Youth Drug Court in Christchurch, featured in the Press
today (Oct 1) in an article.
HELEN MCLEOD: As a medical laboratory scientist I have been involved in drug
testing and seen the extent of the problem that is affecting all members of our
society and especially our young people and prison population. In the community
notices that I regularly distribute to GPs and Practice Nurses, I publicise
local drug treatment programmes to help provide information to health
professionals searching for treatment for their patients.
Christchurch has a major drug problem especially as we have prisons here which
hold serious offenders. When they are released I understand that a significant
number remain in Christchurch rather than returning to their home town/city
because they are released here rather than back into their home environment.
But what really concerns me is that when we find someone with a drug problem
either through the medical or legal/prison system who indicate that they want
to stop, then it is difficult to get them into a treatment programme. There
simply aren't enough funded places and addicts who can't get treatment are left
with having to use whatever means they can to support their habit.
RICHARD DEAR: What I bring to the table is governance expertise and
experience, which includes upon election the need to fully inform myself on all
the relevant issues. This requires both reading and consultation with groups
and individuals. I would appreciate you forwarding to me all the information
you hold on this matter. Would it be convenient to attach it to an email?
RICHARD W DAVIDSON: Probably not. My focus is on improving health outcomes in
Canterbury
JOHN ALLEN: Sorry but my background is Dentistry, I entered this election to
challenge the other candidates and there futile promises. No mater who you vote
for once elected you have to report to the Minister of Health and not to the
people that elected you like yourself, under the rules of the position you
must enforce the district plan, this year the board were allowed three weeks to
make submissions to the Govt on spending just over a billion dollars in our
region! To me treasury has already decided what will happen the board as a
whole are ineffective and irrelevant If by a miracle I am elected I will be
donating my salary to the charity hospital as it disgusts me the amount of
money wasted on these futile submissions. If you want to progress your ideas
then the only way to do it is lobbying central govt you cannot do it at a local
level. In my opinion Alcohol as a legal drug is very distructive in our
community but you are going against a very big industry with a lot of of
resorces and deep pockets.
REBEKAH HOLDAWAY: No I don't have any current expertise in this issue however I
do support the sister cites programme.
ALISON WILKIE: Sorry, no.
LAURENCE MALCOLM: This is a national issue to be addressed to the
Minister/Ministry of Health.
(I know that someone was going to say that ! Like the Dog Control Act, it's the
City Council who are required to enforce the law...)
The list of all candidates are here:
http://ccc.govt.nz/Elections/2007/Candidates/
I'm happy of the replies that i got... This REALLY helps me with my 'voter
preference'
inappropriate to judge the candidates by their silence in this forum. So I
emailed them all (those emails that I had), and this was the response that I
had
RICHARD BEDDIE: Thanks for the email, and very good topic. Apologies for the
delay in replying - I have been away overseas for the last 5 days.
I am standing very much on a "wellness/prevention" platform - this is where my
expertise is .
Alcohol, drugs and smoking are all excellent examples of areas that prevention
is not only CHEAPER than treatment of the effects, but desirable from a
public /social outcome point of view.
I have outlined my general ideas on my web site - www.richardbeddie.co.nz.
I believe there needs to be a substantial increase into ensuring EFFECTIVE
prevention programs are put into place in all these areas (and several others -
including type II diabetes, which will cripple the health system within 30
years if its growth is not reversed).
We also don't need to re-invent the wheel, so exploring existing programs that
are effective should be part of the solution (while I am not aware of the
details of the Seattle's program, if this works, we should give serious
consideration to it!)
Feel free to contact me if you would like any further info.
DAVID MORRELL: Thanks for your email.
Whilst City Missioner & CEO at Christchurch City Mission I introduced a
non-medical Detoxification Programme and established a centre for it in what is
now known as Thorpe House. This was (& remains) partially funded by the DHB.
This was a new concept at the time, and although it had the support of the two
successive senior medical consultants in the addictions field at Hilmorton
Hospital, it was quite a battle to get the model established and accepted -
which it now is.
The Thorpe House residential programme we subsequently extended by the addition
of a mobile home detoxification worker on DHB funding.
The non-medical detoxification system implemented at Thorpe was copied from a
Canadian system used by the health services in Ontario. I arranged to see the
Toronto units whilst in North America on study leave in 1988.
I subsequently established a Women's Addictions Programme in another house
across the road from the City Mission - also funded by the DHB. Canda has done
some very innovative thinking in the health sphere and I would be glad to hear
more of the Seattle scheme you mention - I see no need to re-invent the wheel
and have been equally happy for others to borrow from anything we have done
here.
PETER STOCKS: I do not believe that a blog site is the best forum to debate the
issues raised by Blair because it is, by its very nature, restrictive in
content and breadth of discussion and it is limited in reach and variety of
input. Blair's reference to the Seattle experiment and to the liberalisation
of drugs in the Netherlands might fit in their social context but it does not
necessarily follow that it will fit ours. It is clear that extensive and
informed debate (Blair is obviously well read on the topic) is required which
considers all aspects relevant to the social, economic, political and
demographic spheres of our society. It will be an amalgam of these topics that
will engender open public debate and from here political change will follow,
albeit at a slow pace.
What do I bring to the debate if elected to the CDHB? An independent mind that
is not biased toward the views of the establishment. This is probably the best
you can hope for in such a contentious debate.
When I asked What evidence do you have that it wouldn't work here ? Peter wrote
back:
I didn't say that it would not work here but rather just because it might work
in one culture/sub-culture (common western links aside) does not necessarily
mean it will work in another. The answer to this question will be born out of
social, economic, political and demographic study and a cultural comparative
analysis (no doubt this has been done already). My problem is that I am not
well read enough on this particular subject, at this stage, to offer a
considered and learned opinion on the matter. All I can say is that I am open
to the debate because I have not been closed to it by the subjective views of
those with interests and, because I am independent, I am not driven down any
particular path of reasoning.
STEVE WRIGHT: As I am not a sitting member of the Board, I have not seen the
"Drug Policy" that you refer to however I have strong views regarding the
misuse of any form of drugs. In regards to the Sister City aspect, I have been
a member of the Kurashiki Sister City Committee for about 4 or 5 years and I am
well aware of what we can learn from our sister Cities, esp Seattle who have
taken innovative approaches on many Law and Order and Community Health issues
that we may well look more closely at.
Alister James: Yes to the first question but no to the second. I have an
interest in drug policy issues as a youth advocate involved in and in the
establishment of the Youth Drug Court in Christchurch, featured in the Press
today (Oct 1) in an article.
HELEN MCLEOD: As a medical laboratory scientist I have been involved in drug
testing and seen the extent of the problem that is affecting all members of our
society and especially our young people and prison population. In the community
notices that I regularly distribute to GPs and Practice Nurses, I publicise
local drug treatment programmes to help provide information to health
professionals searching for treatment for their patients.
Christchurch has a major drug problem especially as we have prisons here which
hold serious offenders. When they are released I understand that a significant
number remain in Christchurch rather than returning to their home town/city
because they are released here rather than back into their home environment.
But what really concerns me is that when we find someone with a drug problem
either through the medical or legal/prison system who indicate that they want
to stop, then it is difficult to get them into a treatment programme. There
simply aren't enough funded places and addicts who can't get treatment are left
with having to use whatever means they can to support their habit.
RICHARD DEAR: What I bring to the table is governance expertise and
experience, which includes upon election the need to fully inform myself on all
the relevant issues. This requires both reading and consultation with groups
and individuals. I would appreciate you forwarding to me all the information
you hold on this matter. Would it be convenient to attach it to an email?
RICHARD W DAVIDSON: Probably not. My focus is on improving health outcomes in
Canterbury
JOHN ALLEN: Sorry but my background is Dentistry, I entered this election to
challenge the other candidates and there futile promises. No mater who you vote
for once elected you have to report to the Minister of Health and not to the
people that elected you like yourself, under the rules of the position you
must enforce the district plan, this year the board were allowed three weeks to
make submissions to the Govt on spending just over a billion dollars in our
region! To me treasury has already decided what will happen the board as a
whole are ineffective and irrelevant If by a miracle I am elected I will be
donating my salary to the charity hospital as it disgusts me the amount of
money wasted on these futile submissions. If you want to progress your ideas
then the only way to do it is lobbying central govt you cannot do it at a local
level. In my opinion Alcohol as a legal drug is very distructive in our
community but you are going against a very big industry with a lot of of
resorces and deep pockets.
REBEKAH HOLDAWAY: No I don't have any current expertise in this issue however I
do support the sister cites programme.
ALISON WILKIE: Sorry, no.
LAURENCE MALCOLM: This is a national issue to be addressed to the
Minister/Ministry of Health.
(I know that someone was going to say that ! Like the Dog Control Act, it's the
City Council who are required to enforce the law...)
The list of all candidates are here:
http://ccc.govt.nz/Elections/2007/Candidates/
I'm happy of the replies that i got... This REALLY helps me with my 'voter
preference'
To N.Perzylo thankyou for posting those responses .I was wading through the
little blue book that was supplied and was making my choices on their written
words .
little blue book that was supplied and was making my choices on their written
words .
Dear Natalie,
Regarding the candidate responses to your email... it would be useful for
people to see the question that they were asked.
The question I received was:
"As a DHB candidate, do you bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge
any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?"
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
Regarding the candidate responses to your email... it would be useful for
people to see the question that they were asked.
The question I received was:
"As a DHB candidate, do you bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge
any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?"
<email obscured>
Ph. (03) 363 0824
Mob. 027 5622 772
-----Original Message-----
From: N. Perzylo [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 5:12 p.m.
To: Canterbury Public Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] DHB candidates survey
Knowing that no all candidates are on this forum, I thought that it would be
inappropriate to judge the candidates by their silence in this forum. So I
emailed them all (those emails that I had), and this was the response that I
had
RICHARD BEDDIE: Thanks for the email, and very good topic. Apologies for
the delay in replying - I have been away overseas for the last 5 days.
I am standing very much on a "wellness/prevention" platform - this is where
my expertise is .
Alcohol, drugs and smoking are all excellent examples of areas that
prevention is not only CHEAPER than treatment of the effects, but
desirable from a public /social outcome point of view.
I have outlined my general ideas on my web site - www.richardbeddie.co.nz.
I believe there needs to be a substantial increase into ensuring EFFECTIVE
prevention programs are put into place in all these areas (and several
others - including type II diabetes, which will cripple the health system
within 30 years if its growth is not reversed).
We also don't need to re-invent the wheel, so exploring existing programs
that are effective should be part of the solution (while I am not aware of
the details of the Seattle's program, if this works, we should give serious
consideration to it!)
Feel free to contact me if you would like any further info.
DAVID MORRELL: Thanks for your email.
Whilst City Missioner & CEO at Christchurch City Mission I introduced a
non-medical Detoxification Programme and established a centre for it in what
is now known as Thorpe House. This was (& remains) partially funded by the
DHB. This was a new concept at the time, and although it had the support of
the two successive senior medical consultants in the addictions field at
Hilmorton Hospital, it was quite a battle to get the model established and
accepted - which it now is.
The Thorpe House residential programme we subsequently extended by the
addition of a mobile home detoxification worker on DHB funding.
The non-medical detoxification system implemented at Thorpe was copied from
a Canadian system used by the health services in Ontario. I arranged to see
the Toronto units whilst in North America on study leave in 1988.
I subsequently established a Women's Addictions Programme in another house
across the road from the City Mission - also funded by the DHB. Canda has
done some very innovative thinking in the health sphere and I would be glad
to hear more of the Seattle scheme you mention - I see no need to re-invent
the wheel and have been equally happy for others to borrow from anything we
have done here.
PETER STOCKS: I do not believe that a blog site is the best forum to debate
the issues raised by Blair because it is, by its very nature, restrictive in
content and breadth of discussion and it is limited in reach and variety of
input. Blair's reference to the Seattle experiment and to the
liberalisation of drugs in the Netherlands might fit in their social context
but it does not necessarily follow that it will fit ours. It is clear that
extensive and informed debate (Blair is obviously well read on the topic) is
required which considers all aspects relevant to the social, economic,
political and demographic spheres of our society. It will be an amalgam of
these topics that will engender open public debate and from here political
change will follow, albeit at a slow pace.
What do I bring to the debate if elected to the CDHB? An independent mind
that is not biased toward the views of the establishment. This is probably
the best you can hope for in such a contentious debate.
When I asked What evidence do you have that it wouldn't work here ? Peter
wrote back:
I didn't say that it would not work here but rather just because it might
work in one culture/sub-culture (common western links aside) does not
necessarily mean it will work in another. The answer to this question will
be born out of social, economic, political and demographic study and a
cultural comparative analysis (no doubt this has been done already). My
problem is that I am not well read enough on this particular subject, at
this stage, to offer a considered and learned opinion on the matter. All I
can say is that I am open to the debate because I have not been closed to it
by the subjective views of those with interests and, because I am
independent, I am not driven down any particular path of reasoning.
STEVE WRIGHT: As I am not a sitting member of the Board, I have not seen the
"Drug Policy" that you refer to however I have strong views regarding the
misuse of any form of drugs. In regards to the Sister City aspect, I have
been a member of the Kurashiki Sister City Committee for about 4 or 5 years
and I am well aware of what we can learn from our sister Cities, esp Seattle
who have taken innovative approaches on many Law and Order and Community
Health issues that we may well look more closely at.
Alister James: Yes to the first question but no to the second. I have an
interest in drug policy issues as a youth advocate involved in and in the
establishment of the Youth Drug Court in Christchurch, featured in the Press
today (Oct 1) in an article.
HELEN MCLEOD: As a medical laboratory scientist I have been involved in drug
testing and seen the extent of the problem that is affecting all members of
our society and especially our young people and prison population. In the
community notices that I regularly distribute to GPs and Practice Nurses, I
publicise local drug treatment programmes to help provide information to
health professionals searching for treatment for their patients.
Christchurch has a major drug problem especially as we have prisons here
which hold serious offenders. When they are released I understand that a
significant number remain in Christchurch rather than returning to their
home town/city because they are released here rather than back into their
home environment.
But what really concerns me is that when we find someone with a drug problem
either through the medical or legal/prison system who indicate that they
want to stop, then it is difficult to get them into a treatment programme.
There simply aren't enough funded places and addicts who can't get treatment
are left with having to use whatever means they can to support their habit.
RICHARD DEAR: What I bring to the table is governance expertise and
experience, which includes upon election the need to fully inform myself on
all the relevant issues. This requires both reading and consultation with
groups and individuals. I would appreciate you forwarding to me all the
information you hold on this matter. Would it be convenient to attach it to
an email?
RICHARD W DAVIDSON: Probably not. My focus is on improving health outcomes
in Canterbury
JOHN ALLEN: Sorry but my background is Dentistry, I entered this election to
challenge the other candidates and there futile promises. No mater who you
vote for once elected you have to report to the Minister of Health and not
to the people that elected you like yourself, under the rules of the
position you must enforce the district plan, this year the board were
allowed three weeks to make submissions to the Govt on spending just over a
billion dollars in our region! To me treasury has already decided what will
happen the board as a whole are ineffective and irrelevant If by a miracle I
am elected I will be donating my salary to the charity hospital as it
disgusts me the amount of money wasted on these futile submissions. If you
want to progress your ideas then the only way to do it is lobbying central
govt you cannot do it at a local level. In my opinion Alcohol as a legal
drug is very distructive in our community but you are going against a very
big industry with a lot of
of resorces and deep pockets.
REBEKAH HOLDAWAY: No I don't have any current expertise in this issue
however I do support the sister cites programme.
ALISON WILKIE: Sorry, no.
LAURENCE MALCOLM: This is a national issue to be addressed to the
Minister/Ministry of Health.
(I know that someone was going to say that ! Like the Dog Control Act, it's
the City Council who are required to enforce the law...)
The list of all candidates are here:
http://ccc.govt.nz/Elections/2007/Candidates/
I'm happy of the replies that i got... This REALLY helps me with my 'voter
preference'
Natalie Perzylo
Wainoni, Christchurch, NZ
Info about N. Perzylo: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/natalieperzylo
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6RvrliCeFrQU6uSuDsBUMS
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
"In the Interest of preserving our forests, please consider carefully before
printing this email"
Notice of confidential information: The information contained in this e-mail
message is confidential information and may also be legally privileged,
intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this document in error, please immediately notify the sender by either
email or telephone and destroy the message. Thank you.
From: N. Perzylo [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Thursday, 4 October 2007 5:12 p.m.
To: Canterbury Public Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] DHB candidates survey
Knowing that no all candidates are on this forum, I thought that it would be
inappropriate to judge the candidates by their silence in this forum. So I
emailed them all (those emails that I had), and this was the response that I
had
RICHARD BEDDIE: Thanks for the email, and very good topic. Apologies for
the delay in replying - I have been away overseas for the last 5 days.
I am standing very much on a "wellness/prevention" platform - this is where
my expertise is .
Alcohol, drugs and smoking are all excellent examples of areas that
prevention is not only CHEAPER than treatment of the effects, but
desirable from a public /social outcome point of view.
I have outlined my general ideas on my web site - www.richardbeddie.co.nz.
I believe there needs to be a substantial increase into ensuring EFFECTIVE
prevention programs are put into place in all these areas (and several
others - including type II diabetes, which will cripple the health system
within 30 years if its growth is not reversed).
We also don't need to re-invent the wheel, so exploring existing programs
that are effective should be part of the solution (while I am not aware of
the details of the Seattle's program, if this works, we should give serious
consideration to it!)
Feel free to contact me if you would like any further info.
DAVID MORRELL: Thanks for your email.
Whilst City Missioner & CEO at Christchurch City Mission I introduced a
non-medical Detoxification Programme and established a centre for it in what
is now known as Thorpe House. This was (& remains) partially funded by the
DHB. This was a new concept at the time, and although it had the support of
the two successive senior medical consultants in the addictions field at
Hilmorton Hospital, it was quite a battle to get the model established and
accepted - which it now is.
The Thorpe House residential programme we subsequently extended by the
addition of a mobile home detoxification worker on DHB funding.
The non-medical detoxification system implemented at Thorpe was copied from
a Canadian system used by the health services in Ontario. I arranged to see
the Toronto units whilst in North America on study leave in 1988.
I subsequently established a Women's Addictions Programme in another house
across the road from the City Mission - also funded by the DHB. Canda has
done some very innovative thinking in the health sphere and I would be glad
to hear more of the Seattle scheme you mention - I see no need to re-invent
the wheel and have been equally happy for others to borrow from anything we
have done here.
PETER STOCKS: I do not believe that a blog site is the best forum to debate
the issues raised by Blair because it is, by its very nature, restrictive in
content and breadth of discussion and it is limited in reach and variety of
input. Blair's reference to the Seattle experiment and to the
liberalisation of drugs in the Netherlands might fit in their social context
but it does not necessarily follow that it will fit ours. It is clear that
extensive and informed debate (Blair is obviously well read on the topic) is
required which considers all aspects relevant to the social, economic,
political and demographic spheres of our society. It will be an amalgam of
these topics that will engender open public debate and from here political
change will follow, albeit at a slow pace.
What do I bring to the debate if elected to the CDHB? An independent mind
that is not biased toward the views of the establishment. This is probably
the best you can hope for in such a contentious debate.
When I asked What evidence do you have that it wouldn't work here ? Peter
wrote back:
I didn't say that it would not work here but rather just because it might
work in one culture/sub-culture (common western links aside) does not
necessarily mean it will work in another. The answer to this question will
be born out of social, economic, political and demographic study and a
cultural comparative analysis (no doubt this has been done already). My
problem is that I am not well read enough on this particular subject, at
this stage, to offer a considered and learned opinion on the matter. All I
can say is that I am open to the debate because I have not been closed to it
by the subjective views of those with interests and, because I am
independent, I am not driven down any particular path of reasoning.
STEVE WRIGHT: As I am not a sitting member of the Board, I have not seen the
"Drug Policy" that you refer to however I have strong views regarding the
misuse of any form of drugs. In regards to the Sister City aspect, I have
been a member of the Kurashiki Sister City Committee for about 4 or 5 years
and I am well aware of what we can learn from our sister Cities, esp Seattle
who have taken innovative approaches on many Law and Order and Community
Health issues that we may well look more closely at.
Alister James: Yes to the first question but no to the second. I have an
interest in drug policy issues as a youth advocate involved in and in the
establishment of the Youth Drug Court in Christchurch, featured in the Press
today (Oct 1) in an article.
HELEN MCLEOD: As a medical laboratory scientist I have been involved in drug
testing and seen the extent of the problem that is affecting all members of
our society and especially our young people and prison population. In the
community notices that I regularly distribute to GPs and Practice Nurses, I
publicise local drug treatment programmes to help provide information to
health professionals searching for treatment for their patients.
Christchurch has a major drug problem especially as we have prisons here
which hold serious offenders. When they are released I understand that a
significant number remain in Christchurch rather than returning to their
home town/city because they are released here rather than back into their
home environment.
But what really concerns me is that when we find someone with a drug problem
either through the medical or legal/prison system who indicate that they
want to stop, then it is difficult to get them into a treatment programme.
There simply aren't enough funded places and addicts who can't get treatment
are left with having to use whatever means they can to support their habit.
RICHARD DEAR: What I bring to the table is governance expertise and
experience, which includes upon election the need to fully inform myself on
all the relevant issues. This requires both reading and consultation with
groups and individuals. I would appreciate you forwarding to me all the
information you hold on this matter. Would it be convenient to attach it to
an email?
RICHARD W DAVIDSON: Probably not. My focus is on improving health outcomes
in Canterbury
JOHN ALLEN: Sorry but my background is Dentistry, I entered this election to
challenge the other candidates and there futile promises. No mater who you
vote for once elected you have to report to the Minister of Health and not
to the people that elected you like yourself, under the rules of the
position you must enforce the district plan, this year the board were
allowed three weeks to make submissions to the Govt on spending just over a
billion dollars in our region! To me treasury has already decided what will
happen the board as a whole are ineffective and irrelevant If by a miracle I
am elected I will be donating my salary to the charity hospital as it
disgusts me the amount of money wasted on these futile submissions. If you
want to progress your ideas then the only way to do it is lobbying central
govt you cannot do it at a local level. In my opinion Alcohol as a legal
drug is very distructive in our community but you are going against a very
big industry with a lot of
of resorces and deep pockets.
REBEKAH HOLDAWAY: No I don't have any current expertise in this issue
however I do support the sister cites programme.
ALISON WILKIE: Sorry, no.
LAURENCE MALCOLM: This is a national issue to be addressed to the
Minister/Ministry of Health.
(I know that someone was going to say that ! Like the Dog Control Act, it's
the City Council who are required to enforce the law...)
The list of all candidates are here:
http://ccc.govt.nz/Elections/2007/Candidates/
I'm happy of the replies that i got... This REALLY helps me with my 'voter
preference'
Natalie Perzylo
Wainoni, Christchurch, NZ
Info about N. Perzylo: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/natalieperzylo
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6RvrliCeFrQU6uSuDsBUMS
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
in subject line and send to: canterburyissues@forums.e-democracy.org
More info about Canterbury Public Issues Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
"In the Interest of preserving our forests, please consider carefully before
printing this email"
Notice of confidential information: The information contained in this e-mail
message is confidential information and may also be legally privileged,
intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, review, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this document in error, please immediately notify the sender by either
email or telephone and destroy the message. Thank you.
This is the original email that I sent to the candidates...
It seems that some people did not like the way I phrased the question, or said
that it was not fair play. I did send the ORIGINAL link of the question to
them... It was up to the candidates to look at the question for themselves.
Now is the time for them write directly on the forum...
It seems that some people did not like the way I phrased the question, or said
that it was not fair play. I did send the ORIGINAL link of the question to
them... It was up to the candidates to look at the question for themselves.
Now is the time for them write directly on the forum...
______________________________________
Hi,
The following question on the Canterbury Issues Forum.
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/messages/post/3ZfTyREKBN3GfDmZDZaTIt
In case you are not members of the forum and you haven't seen this very
important question, I ask you, as DHB candidate, what your answer to this is.
Your answers will decide my voter of preference.
"As a DHB candidate, do you bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge
any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?"
--
Regards,
Natalie Perzylo
Hi,
The following question on the Canterbury Issues Forum.
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/canterburyissues/messages/post/3ZfTyREKBN3GfDmZDZaTIt
In case you are not members of the forum and you haven't seen this very
important question, I ask you, as DHB candidate, what your answer to this is.
Your answers will decide my voter of preference.
"As a DHB candidate, do you bring ANY expertise to the table
surrounding efficacy of 'drug policy' laws exacted under warrant of the
Minister of Health [not Justice] currently in wide disrepute OR acknowledge
any merit in fostering 'cultural linkages' via the Sister Cities programme
exploring why Seattle's entire health and law sector addressed themselves to
these pressing issues?"
--
Regards,
Natalie Perzylo
Hide the post
Loading…