Hobart Alderman and Independent candidate for Denison Marti Zucco: “Will introduce Zero Tolerance legislation to take serious steps to alleviate current drinking culture that is creating havoc on our streets we need cultural change that firstly sends a clear message that this behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
He added that “We do not only need one punch legislation that only deals with the end result (of the one punch assault) but legislation that deals with the problems and why a one punch occurs first and foremost, education counseling and rehabilitation is a must”
Alderman Zucco said that “In 2009 I called for establishments to stop the “Happy hours” I now call on the industry to develop a code of no “cheap drinks” or discounts that offer Jugs or shots and or discounted prices. This not will alleviate the binge drinking/drug fuelled culture, but it’s another step””
He also said “It is obvious that we have a serious drinking and drug culture that needs immediate attention, we need to change our drinking culture and have zero tolerance also more deterrents such as cameras and a higher police presence with real education and counseling programs put in place”
The Long time Alderman said that other options that should be given consideration such as:
• Change legislation to a one strike policy for serious drink/drug offenders set penalties relative to the nature of the drug or alcohol related offence.
• One Strike system
• Preset penalties for seriousness of the offence
• Accepting blame rather than blaming others such as establishments
o Establishments have a duty of care under the “responsible serving policy”
• Offenders are ultimately at fault, this blame “others” syndrome has to change
• The need for deterring with immediate rehabilitation those who offend is a must
o Do the crime pay the penalty- irrespective and not simply fines
• Rather than fines have set of Counseling/rehabilitation options ultimately paid for by the offender – should the offender be unable to pay the State bear the cost and their earnings garnisheed (even those on any social security or other Government payments)
• Time for real action!
o If they pay to drink and do drugs. Then they can pay for their crime!
He also pointed out that “Under drink driving laws we have primarily set penalties for repeat offenders, similar legislation should be in place to protect our streets before the “one punch” laws are implemented as we need to stop it before it gets to that stage, deal with why we have this problem first and foremost”
He also said “Rudi Juliani cleaned up New York with Zero Tolerance, lets clean up Tasmania and Australia with the same principle or is it too hard for politicians to make some real harsh decisions, my proposed legislation will do that”
Any person charged with an alcohol related offence will be on a graded scale from low to high depending on the severity and any violent nature of the offence with appropriate set penalties with each scale. We know that if one is caught drink driving and has a blood reading over a certain level their license is immediately suspended”
One Strike “you’re out” offenders program & penalties not just fines that do not provide offenders with the help they may need (an example)
• Period of Counseling
• Education & Rehabilitation program
• Period of Community service
• Weekend detention
• Other penalties
Penalties should be such that it provides offenders an opportunity to accept blame and take an early penalty plea that will save time and money in the court system.
Example
• An offenders early plead guilty option the penalty maybe set at 3 months
• With a Court appearance with a judged guilty verdict – the penalty will double
For a start this should save our police and court system time effort and money.
He further added that “We need to start educating our youth; at a Hobart drug and alcohol conference, I have previously suggested that a drug, alcohol & life education curriculum should be mandatory for all year 11 & 12 student’s maybe we should start earlier”
In closing he said “What are our options? Sit on our backside and talk about it and do nothing or come up with ideas to help curb and change our culture, we also need to ensure our Police are not in the firing line of the current madness and they need support and protection”
“A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce re-offending.
The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop”
Information Attachments below …
Zero tolerance and narcotics
See also: War on drugs and Drug policy of Sweden:
In the United States, zero tolerance as an approach against drugs, was originally designed as a part of the War on Drugs under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ostensibly to curb the transfer of drugs at US borders. Law-enforcement was to target the drug users rather than the transporters or suppliers under the assumptions that harsh sentences and strict enforcement of personal use would reduce demand, and therefore, strike at root cause of the drug problem. The policy did not require additional laws, instead existing law was enacted with less leniency.[19] Similar concepts in other countries, such as Sweden,[20] Italy,[21] Japan,[22] Singapore[23] China, India and Russia[24] have since been labeled zero tolerance.
A consistence of zero tolerance is the absolute dichotomy between the legality of any use and no use, equating all illicit drugs and any form of use as undesirable and harmful to society. This is contrasting to viewpoints of those who stress the disparity in harmfulness among drugs, and who would like to distinguish between occasional drug use and problem drug use. Although harm reductionists also see drug use as undesirable, they hold that the resources would do more good if they were to be allocated towards helping problem drug users instead of combating all drug users.[19][25] As an example, research findings from Switzerland indicate that emphasis on problem drug users “seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people.”[26]
On a more general level, zero tolerance-advocates holds the aim at ridding the society of all illicit drug use and that criminal justice has an important role in that endeavor.[19] The Swedish parliament for example set the vision a drug-free society as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. These visions were to prompt new practices inspired by Nils Bejerot, practices later labeled as Zero tolerance. In 1980 the Swedish attorney general finally dropped the practice of giving waivers for possession of drugs for personal use after years of lowering the thresholds. The same year police began to prioritize drug users and street-level drug crimes over drug distributors. In 1988 all non medicinally prescribed usage became illegal and in 1993 the enforcement of personal use were eased by permitting the police to take blood or urine samples from suspects. This unrelenting approach towards drug users, together with generous treatment opportunities have won UNODC’s approval and is cited by the UN as one the main reason for Sweden’s relatively low drug prevalence rates.[20] However, that interpretation of the statistics and the more general success of Sweden’s drug policies are highly questioned.[27][28][29]
Zero tolerance and driving
The term is used in the context of driving under the influence of alcohol, referring to a lower illegal blood alcohol content for drivers under the age of 21.[citation needed] In the U.S., the legal limit in all states is now .08%, but for drivers under 21 the prohibited level in most states is .01% or .02%. This is also true in Puerto Rico despite a drinking age of 18.
In Europe, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden have zero-tolerance law for drugs and driving, this as opposed to the other main legal approach where laws forbidding impaired driving is enacted instead. The legislation among countries that practice zero tolerance on drug use for drivers varies. Only a limited set of (common) drugs are included in the zero-tolerance legislation in Germany and Belgium, where in Finland and Sweden all controlled substances fall into the scoop of zero tolerance, if they are not covered by a prescription.[30]
In Asia, Japan also practice zero-tolerance for alcohol and driving. The people caught driving after drinking, including the next morning if there are still traces of alcohol, have a fine, can be fired and for foreigners, even be deported.
An anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) /ˈæzboʊ/ is a civil order made in the United Kingdom against a person who has been shown, on the balance of evidence, to have engaged in anti-social behaviour. The orders, introduced by Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998,[1] were designed to correct minor incidents that would not ordinarily warrant criminal prosecution.[2] The orders restrict behaviour in some way, by prohibiting a return to a certain area or shop, or by restricting public behaviour such as swearing or drinking alcohol. Many see the ASBO as connected with young delinquents.[3] In July 2010, new Home Secretary Theresa May announced her intention to reform anti-social behaviour measures for England and Wales with the abolition of ASBOs in due course in favour of alternative ‘community-based’ social control policies.[4]
The Netherlands[edit]
In 2007 and 2008 Kees Keizer and colleagues from the University of Groningen conducted a series of controlled experiments to determine if the effect of existing disorder (such as litter or graffiti) increased the incidence of additional crime like stealing, littering or conducting other acts of antisocial behavior. They selected several urban locations which they then arranged in two different ways, at different times. In one condition—the control—the place was maintained orderly. It was kept free from graffiti, broken windows, etc. In the other condition—the experiment—exactly the same environment was arranged in a way where it looked like nobody monitored it and cared about it: windows were broken, graffiti were placed on the walls, among other things. The researchers then secretly monitored the locations to observe if people behaved differently when the environment was disordered. The results supported the theory. Their conclusion, published in the journal Science, was that:
One example of disorder, like graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing.[17][18]
Independent Denison candidate Marti Zucco
