SA Government considers proposal to lock up out-of-control drug addicts and alcoholics for mandatory rehabilitation treatment

DRUG and alcohol addicts could be locked up for treatment under a plan being considered by the State Government — but a rehabilitation expert warns the drastic measure could backfire.

• Young dealer tells of teenage drug culture in South Australia
• Ice blamed for increasing assaults on pub and club staff
• Wastewater analysis suggests Adelaide is Australia’s ice capital
• Push for ice ingestion rooms in Adelaide

DRUG and alcohol addicts could be locked up for treatment under a plan being considered by the State Government.

The plan has been described as a “last resort” to save the lives of severe drug and alcohol users in SA.

Patients would be detained for up to two weeks in an existing SA Health facility, such as Glenside, for the treatment if it was determined it was needed to save an addict’s life or prevent serious damage to their health.

But concerns have already been raised the plan could be a breach of human rights, costly and ineffective.

SA Health will on Sunday close the public submission process on a proposed trial that is part of the State Government’s response to the drug ice.

It comes as the Sunday Mail’s comprehensive annual YourSay SA survey, in December, found three out of four South Australian regard drug abuse and ice epidemic as the greatest law and order issue facing the state.

And the State Opposition has also vowed to introduce legislation to impose mandatory one-year detention plans for at-risk addicts up to the age of 18 if they are elected in March.

The proposal would see at-risk addicts detained for up to two weeks for mandatory treatment.

Health Minister Peter Malinauskas told the Sunday Mail despite conflicting evidence about the success of mandatory treatments — including in SA Health’s own consultation paper — it was important to look at all options to tackle the ice epidemic.

“We are willing and remain open to explore all options,” Mr Malinauskas said.

“The ice taskforce was probably the most harrowing public consultations that I have been involved in.

“It is well documented the enormity of the impact that the drug has on families.”

South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services executive officer Michael White told the Sunday Mail a similar trial in Victoria did not yield great results.

“You are talking about serious amounts of money and there is good evidence that money would be better spent on treating them earlier with voluntary treatment,” Mr White said.

“It is possible to design a better system that is less about meeting the public need for intervention and more about actually testing what works in this space.”

Mr White said each year in SA about 11,000 of the 15,000-20,000 people seeking drug treatment got into a program.

Mr Malinauskas acknowledged shortfalls but pointed to an $8 million investment, including additional beds in regional SA and support for families, as the State Government’s commitment to fix the problem of ice.

Civil Liberties Australia chief executive Bill Rowlings said mandatory detention and compulsory treatment infringe an individual’s rights to liberty and autonomy in decision-making.

“Because it is an extreme limitation on these rights, any proposal must be justified and proportionate,” Mr Rowlings said.

Opposition Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman said she doubted Labor would follow through with a trial.

Ms Chapman also questioned the effectiveness of any program that would only detain people for 14 days for treatment.

“A two-week course is like giving panadol to a cancer patient,” she said.

In 2015 a review of the Act underpinning mandatory treatment in Victoria found in that state 23 clients were admitted a total of 28 times between March 2011 and February 2015.

A review of 25 treatment cases found five clients abstinent (20 per cent), two clients reduced substance use (8 per cent) 12 clients relapsed (48 per cent), three clients deceased (12 per cent) and three clients could not be found presumed relapsed (12 per cent).

At the time the Victorian Government said “the Act is effective in so far as improvement has been reported for around one third of clients, six months after discharge”.