The New South Wales government is busily wording a new law to protect home buyers from shonky building firms that build substandard buildings. The present law is hopelessly inadequate and leaves many owners locked in battle with the people who built apartment complexes to have defects fixed. These industry people have deep pockets and repeatedly take matters to appeal to delay an outcome.
This new law will require developers to lodge a 2 percent bond with NSW Fair Trading when the construction contract is signed. The safety aspect revolves around two inspections, the first of which will take place between 15 and 18 months after completion. The final inspection happens between 21 and 24 months and the bond will not be released until there are no defects remaining after that inspection gives the all clear.
Industry insiders warn that a two percent bond will be inadequate to cover rectification of defects and a five percent bond should be written into the law. Anecdotal evidence also indicated that the timing of those inspections cannot hope to disclose defects that are not immediately evident. Many building shortcuts lay dormant for years and only appear as the building ages. The purchase of any sort of dwelling is usually the biggest money transaction that the average person makes in a lifetime. The integrity of what is purchased is of critical importance.
There are also loop holes in this new law. It only applies to buildings that are intended to become strata buildings on completion. A building intended to become an office block can be converted for home strata use if demand for office space dwindles - and so avoid the rectification onus of this act. It would not be unreasonable to require this guarantee of structural integrity to apply to every new building, irrespective of its intended purpose.
The other anomaly is the restriction of what amounts to a guarantee of work compliance to just two years - and only applies to buildings under construction. It is not uncommon for existing older buildings to be converted into modern apartments and it seems that such conversions are not covered by this new safety law.
Both the legal industry and the entire construction spectrum seem to be whistling in the dark over another aspect of building safety that remains unresolved. In June of this year London had a tragic fire when Grenfell Tower's burning transfixed viewers on television screens and scores lost their lives.
This building was owned by a council and had been recently renovated, but the cladding on the exterior violated the law because it was flammable. This enabled an easily contained unit fire to escape and move up the outer face of the building, until it became a blazing torch. To our consternation, we find that tis same flammable material is present on many high rise buildings here in Australia.
Half a year later - and nothing has changed. We have scores of buildings capable of replicating that Grenfell Tower fire and work should be processing in removing that fatal cladding and installing a safe replacement - but that is not happening.
The " Who pays " issue is the impediment, and that remains to be decided in a court. It is complex. This material is not legal and yet councils have signed off on the work, compounding their share of the blame. Many of the building firms that installed the material lack the financial strength to survive rectification cost, and blame may also spread to the importers who brought this problem into Australia.
Perhaps a very good time to go back to the drawing board and plan a comprehensive responsibility regimen that covers both construction and renovation for the lifetime of apartment buildings. This new proposal falls a long way short of that objective !
Sunday, 7 January 2018
Saturday, 6 January 2018
Rewriting the Classics !
It seems that the mood to make the world " politically correct " has now moved to altering the finality of opera stories. The talented people who wrote the music and story of so many operas that we love were telling tales without regard to the ethics that apply to women today.
When Georges Bizet wrote " Carmen " his finale had the Gypsy heroine stabbed to death by her discarded lover. An Italian musical foundation has rewritten this opera to completely alter the ending. Instead of being stabbed to death, Carmen produces a pistol and shoots the man who has done her wrong.
The Foundation head justifies this on the grounds that the change delivers a " more modern meaning ". At a time when our society is having to confront the murder of women, how can we dare to applaud the killing of a woman.
Many opera lovers will despair - but where does it end ? We revere Shakespeare but many of his stories would attract criticism from the women's movement of today. The " Taming of the Shrew " would have many feminists in a frenzy, but it is hard to see how this play could possibly be relevant with a different ending.
If morality is to be the new measure in entertainment, we may have to go back and do a remake of " Gone with the Wind ". That rejection scene where Rhett Butler delivers his " I don't give a damn " line would be rejected - and replaced with a long winded explanation to satisfy the whims of today.
Strangely, in this new version of " Carmen " there is no outcry from men that one of their gender dies from a pistol shot. We are not seeing a movement to exclude all forms of violence from entertainment, because that would make the genre boring - to the point of being unwatchable. It seems to be just the female gender that is getting prickly about the reality scenes being portrayed on stage or on screen.
Over the years many operas have been revised to make them appealing to different - sometimes younger - audiences. A new version of" Carmen " titled " Carmen Jones " simply changed the scene from bull fighters to boxers and street gangs, but with the same music and updated lyrics. It was evident that it did not do anything to replace the original as a popular taste.
This revised version of " Carmen " will probably suffer the same fate. The " difference " aspect will draw some people to opera for the first time but across the world where Carmen is performed it is Bizet's original that will play to audiences.
Reducing the violence faced by women is mainly a matter of education. It will not be achieved by denigrating the brilliance of the old masters by destroying their story lines !
When Georges Bizet wrote " Carmen " his finale had the Gypsy heroine stabbed to death by her discarded lover. An Italian musical foundation has rewritten this opera to completely alter the ending. Instead of being stabbed to death, Carmen produces a pistol and shoots the man who has done her wrong.
The Foundation head justifies this on the grounds that the change delivers a " more modern meaning ". At a time when our society is having to confront the murder of women, how can we dare to applaud the killing of a woman.
Many opera lovers will despair - but where does it end ? We revere Shakespeare but many of his stories would attract criticism from the women's movement of today. The " Taming of the Shrew " would have many feminists in a frenzy, but it is hard to see how this play could possibly be relevant with a different ending.
If morality is to be the new measure in entertainment, we may have to go back and do a remake of " Gone with the Wind ". That rejection scene where Rhett Butler delivers his " I don't give a damn " line would be rejected - and replaced with a long winded explanation to satisfy the whims of today.
Strangely, in this new version of " Carmen " there is no outcry from men that one of their gender dies from a pistol shot. We are not seeing a movement to exclude all forms of violence from entertainment, because that would make the genre boring - to the point of being unwatchable. It seems to be just the female gender that is getting prickly about the reality scenes being portrayed on stage or on screen.
Over the years many operas have been revised to make them appealing to different - sometimes younger - audiences. A new version of" Carmen " titled " Carmen Jones " simply changed the scene from bull fighters to boxers and street gangs, but with the same music and updated lyrics. It was evident that it did not do anything to replace the original as a popular taste.
This revised version of " Carmen " will probably suffer the same fate. The " difference " aspect will draw some people to opera for the first time but across the world where Carmen is performed it is Bizet's original that will play to audiences.
Reducing the violence faced by women is mainly a matter of education. It will not be achieved by denigrating the brilliance of the old masters by destroying their story lines !
Friday, 5 January 2018
Taxing " Grog " !
A long time ago - when Bob Hawke was prime minister - the government decided to decrease the alcohol content to create a choice of full strength or " light " beer. The excise tax remained the same and so the price of either was unchanged - either over the bar or in the bottle shop.
Bob Hawke tried to convince us that the alcohol strength was not the reason we drank beer. It was the refreshing taste and we should accept the equal price for both full strength and the light product. That argument went down like a lead balloon and was compounded by a Hawke gaffe while electioneering in a country town.
He proposed a round of drinks with several fellows in a pub - and put a five dollar bill on the bar to pay for the round.. It seems that prime ministers have little call on pocket change and he was obviously out of touch with the cost of a schooner in that day and age. The government caved in and instituted a lower excise tax on light beer.
Now the anti-alcohol lobby is trying to do away with heavily discounted cans and bottles sold in bottle shops and the " Happy Hour " so popular in many pubs on Friday and Saturday night. Their argument is that " a beer is a beer - is a beer " and the tax should apply equally irrespective of what form it comes in.
That ties in with the proposal to institute a floor price on all forms of alcohol. At present, the tax differs depending on whether the alcohol is beer, spirits or wine - and how it is packaged. The anti-alcohol lobby wants any form of alcoholic drink to have a minimum price component to eliminate " cheap " products which they say encourages binge drinking.
The main target seems to be cask wine. A five litre cask often sells for as low as ten dollars and this proposal would push the price to forty-five dollars. The excise on all alcohol would rise by ten percent and both cheap drinks over the bar and buying a carton of cans or bottles from the bottle shop would reflect that base price per drink. It is estimated that this would increase the governments excise tax dividend by another $ 2.9 billion a year.
Typical of anti-alcohol lobby thinking, this proposal is being offered to the government as a revenue increase. The excise hike would cost taxpayers $ 2.9 billion and only $ 27.5 million would be ploughed back in preventive health spending, with the balance going into government coffers. That is tempting to any Treasurer.
There is a lesson to be learned here from what happened when the government decided to tackle another health problem. We hiked the cost of cigarettes in the hope that a dollar a smoke would see many smokers quit. Some did, but the price delivered an opportunity to the black economy and we are awash with smuggled tobacco pouring in through our opaque customs control.
The " law of supply and demand " applies. We Australians love our grog and if the government puts it out of economic reach the black economy will fill that need. All it takes is the legitimate price to rise to a level where the smuggler can make a profit.
Bob Hawke tried to convince us that the alcohol strength was not the reason we drank beer. It was the refreshing taste and we should accept the equal price for both full strength and the light product. That argument went down like a lead balloon and was compounded by a Hawke gaffe while electioneering in a country town.
He proposed a round of drinks with several fellows in a pub - and put a five dollar bill on the bar to pay for the round.. It seems that prime ministers have little call on pocket change and he was obviously out of touch with the cost of a schooner in that day and age. The government caved in and instituted a lower excise tax on light beer.
Now the anti-alcohol lobby is trying to do away with heavily discounted cans and bottles sold in bottle shops and the " Happy Hour " so popular in many pubs on Friday and Saturday night. Their argument is that " a beer is a beer - is a beer " and the tax should apply equally irrespective of what form it comes in.
That ties in with the proposal to institute a floor price on all forms of alcohol. At present, the tax differs depending on whether the alcohol is beer, spirits or wine - and how it is packaged. The anti-alcohol lobby wants any form of alcoholic drink to have a minimum price component to eliminate " cheap " products which they say encourages binge drinking.
The main target seems to be cask wine. A five litre cask often sells for as low as ten dollars and this proposal would push the price to forty-five dollars. The excise on all alcohol would rise by ten percent and both cheap drinks over the bar and buying a carton of cans or bottles from the bottle shop would reflect that base price per drink. It is estimated that this would increase the governments excise tax dividend by another $ 2.9 billion a year.
Typical of anti-alcohol lobby thinking, this proposal is being offered to the government as a revenue increase. The excise hike would cost taxpayers $ 2.9 billion and only $ 27.5 million would be ploughed back in preventive health spending, with the balance going into government coffers. That is tempting to any Treasurer.
There is a lesson to be learned here from what happened when the government decided to tackle another health problem. We hiked the cost of cigarettes in the hope that a dollar a smoke would see many smokers quit. Some did, but the price delivered an opportunity to the black economy and we are awash with smuggled tobacco pouring in through our opaque customs control.
The " law of supply and demand " applies. We Australians love our grog and if the government puts it out of economic reach the black economy will fill that need. All it takes is the legitimate price to rise to a level where the smuggler can make a profit.
Thursday, 4 January 2018
Wishful Thinking !
The news that Sydney house prices have ceased their ever upward trend and actually reversed has the economists whistling in the dark. That phenomenon of prices doubling every ten years was simply unsustainable without a surge in inflation and a steady matching increase in wages and salaries - and that was not happening !
The pundits are bleating that this is only a " correction " and will not prove to be catastrophic but in August the median selling price in Sydney reached $ 909,914 and now that same home is only attracting bids of $ 895,342 - a ten percent drop which wipes $ 90,000 off the value of individual homes.
The people who will be in trouble are the buyers who jumped into the market with a minimum deposit and a massive mortgage that they can barely afford, feeling safe because if the pressure got too great they could slap the property back on the market - and make a profit. In many cases, that minimum deposit was a gift or a loan from the bank of " Mum and Dad ".
What the market gurus are spouting is more wishful thinking because the outcome of this price drop is an unknown factor. All it will take is a surge of " For Sale " signs on front lawns to create a price panic as buyers desert the market. We would do well to remember what happened in the 2008 recession when the banks began enthusiastically to repossess after even small repayment arrears.
When the banks repossessed a home their lack of Real Estate expertise became painfully apparent. They made no attempt to maintain the properties and keep them attractive for buyers and many suburbs became a vista of unmown lawns and neglected gardens. Despite an ongoing rental shortage, no attempt was made to claw back income by putting these properties on the rental market.
We were lucky in that drop in house prices was short lived, but it is the price of homes that has gone against the trend of most other market commodities In 2012 the median house price in Sydney was $ 520,000. If prices retreated back to that level it would represent a decrease of close to 42 percent. That is unlikely, but the price of any item is entirely governed by what the buyers are prepared to pay
Most people will watch the house market change with trepidation.. It is a major factor in the retirement plans of many families. They plan to sell a high priced city home to move to a lower priced retirement venue and a house price crash will wreck those plans. Even those with property that is mortgage free will be seriously affected by such price instability.
At this stage, it is impossible to determine a precise cause for this price decline. In recent weeks auction clearances have dropped and general sales volumes have eased. Sellers who expected a quick sale eased their expectations - and the rumour spread that prices were falling. From there the rumour mill went into overdrive.
Just where this ends up is entirely in the lap of the Gods. Whether it becomes a rout or a mere hiccup will depend on the evaluation put by individual minds and the action that follows. We would be wise to buckle our safety belts. We may be heading for a rough ride !
The pundits are bleating that this is only a " correction " and will not prove to be catastrophic but in August the median selling price in Sydney reached $ 909,914 and now that same home is only attracting bids of $ 895,342 - a ten percent drop which wipes $ 90,000 off the value of individual homes.
The people who will be in trouble are the buyers who jumped into the market with a minimum deposit and a massive mortgage that they can barely afford, feeling safe because if the pressure got too great they could slap the property back on the market - and make a profit. In many cases, that minimum deposit was a gift or a loan from the bank of " Mum and Dad ".
What the market gurus are spouting is more wishful thinking because the outcome of this price drop is an unknown factor. All it will take is a surge of " For Sale " signs on front lawns to create a price panic as buyers desert the market. We would do well to remember what happened in the 2008 recession when the banks began enthusiastically to repossess after even small repayment arrears.
When the banks repossessed a home their lack of Real Estate expertise became painfully apparent. They made no attempt to maintain the properties and keep them attractive for buyers and many suburbs became a vista of unmown lawns and neglected gardens. Despite an ongoing rental shortage, no attempt was made to claw back income by putting these properties on the rental market.
We were lucky in that drop in house prices was short lived, but it is the price of homes that has gone against the trend of most other market commodities In 2012 the median house price in Sydney was $ 520,000. If prices retreated back to that level it would represent a decrease of close to 42 percent. That is unlikely, but the price of any item is entirely governed by what the buyers are prepared to pay
Most people will watch the house market change with trepidation.. It is a major factor in the retirement plans of many families. They plan to sell a high priced city home to move to a lower priced retirement venue and a house price crash will wreck those plans. Even those with property that is mortgage free will be seriously affected by such price instability.
At this stage, it is impossible to determine a precise cause for this price decline. In recent weeks auction clearances have dropped and general sales volumes have eased. Sellers who expected a quick sale eased their expectations - and the rumour spread that prices were falling. From there the rumour mill went into overdrive.
Just where this ends up is entirely in the lap of the Gods. Whether it becomes a rout or a mere hiccup will depend on the evaluation put by individual minds and the action that follows. We would be wise to buckle our safety belts. We may be heading for a rough ride !
Wednesday, 3 January 2018
An Australian Republic ?
With Queen Elizabeth aged ninety-one it is inevitable that the issue of Australia becoming a republic will rise front and centre again in the near future. Affection for the Queen has put this issue on the backburner but this Turnbull/Keating debate is giving it new life.
Australia rejected a referendum that proposed appointing a president selected by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament delivering a two thirds majority to the person selected by the politicians. John Howard was prime minister at that time and he is an avowed monarchist.
If we do become a Republic the Australian public will not settle for less than a popular vote to elect the man or woman who will preside in this country. The politicians rejected this on the grounds that we might not pick someone who is deemed " suitable " !
That does raise an interesting question. " Republics " come in several shapes and sizes. The American system delivers almost unlimited power to the person in the Oval officer, but in other countries the president is a mere figurehead - and power remains in the hands of a prime minister.
The thinking at the time of the referendum was to simply replace the monarchy and its figurehead role with what the politicians hoped would be a tame cat figure with very limited power. There was danger that if a strong personality won office it might result in a constitutional battle between the President and the prime minister for control of the levers of power.
The election of Donald Trump to the American presidency probably closed the door on conversion to an American style presidency here. Electing an Australian president with exactly the same powers as the present monarchy would present the least disruption to our way of life - and deliver the prime objective of having an Australian as head of state.
We would be wise to think long and hard on the conditions we would apply to any presidential hopeful. The American founding fathers insisted that their president must be over twenty-five years old - and born in the United States. That seems a slap in the face to many in a country founded by migrants. We have just gone through constitutional confusion because our constitution bars those with dual nationalities from sitting in parliament. Hopefully, the only requirement of an Australian presidential contender would be that he or she holds valid citizenship in this country.
That last republic referendum was simply designed to fail and given the Queen's extreme age the issue may be revisited very abruptly. It would be an important status change and making a decision with an non compulsory postal vote would be an insult to the Australian people. Exactly what sort of republic should be spelt out in detail and that needs the same sort of elective vote that we demand for parliamentary elections.
Both Turnbull and Keating are doing the nation a favour in raising the republic issue for general debate. We need to consider the implications before the pressure of a decisive campaign which will require us to put pen to paper in a vote. Without doubt, this is an emerging issue that will probably burst on the scene and divide the nation. We would do well to think through the implications before the real issue becomes submerged in political in-fighting.
Australia rejected a referendum that proposed appointing a president selected by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament delivering a two thirds majority to the person selected by the politicians. John Howard was prime minister at that time and he is an avowed monarchist.
If we do become a Republic the Australian public will not settle for less than a popular vote to elect the man or woman who will preside in this country. The politicians rejected this on the grounds that we might not pick someone who is deemed " suitable " !
That does raise an interesting question. " Republics " come in several shapes and sizes. The American system delivers almost unlimited power to the person in the Oval officer, but in other countries the president is a mere figurehead - and power remains in the hands of a prime minister.
The thinking at the time of the referendum was to simply replace the monarchy and its figurehead role with what the politicians hoped would be a tame cat figure with very limited power. There was danger that if a strong personality won office it might result in a constitutional battle between the President and the prime minister for control of the levers of power.
The election of Donald Trump to the American presidency probably closed the door on conversion to an American style presidency here. Electing an Australian president with exactly the same powers as the present monarchy would present the least disruption to our way of life - and deliver the prime objective of having an Australian as head of state.
We would be wise to think long and hard on the conditions we would apply to any presidential hopeful. The American founding fathers insisted that their president must be over twenty-five years old - and born in the United States. That seems a slap in the face to many in a country founded by migrants. We have just gone through constitutional confusion because our constitution bars those with dual nationalities from sitting in parliament. Hopefully, the only requirement of an Australian presidential contender would be that he or she holds valid citizenship in this country.
That last republic referendum was simply designed to fail and given the Queen's extreme age the issue may be revisited very abruptly. It would be an important status change and making a decision with an non compulsory postal vote would be an insult to the Australian people. Exactly what sort of republic should be spelt out in detail and that needs the same sort of elective vote that we demand for parliamentary elections.
Both Turnbull and Keating are doing the nation a favour in raising the republic issue for general debate. We need to consider the implications before the pressure of a decisive campaign which will require us to put pen to paper in a vote. Without doubt, this is an emerging issue that will probably burst on the scene and divide the nation. We would do well to think through the implications before the real issue becomes submerged in political in-fighting.
Tuesday, 2 January 2018
An Alternative Prosecution Strategy !
Justice in the United States is not certain when a police officer shoots a civilian. The powerful police unions obstruct both the investigation and the outcome and rarely does the offender face a court. It is nearing six months since Australian woman Justine Damond called the police to investigate suspicious noises behind her Minneapolis home. A police car with two officers responded, and when - dressed in her pyjamas - she approached to speak to the police, one of them inexplicably fired his weapon and shot her dead.
The prosecutor has complained that " the investigation has not been done to his satisfaction or even to the expected levels of accuracy" and there is yet no basis for a prosecution. The officer who fired the shot has invoked the fifth amendment and refuses to be interviewed and his partner in the car was not being helpful. Neither had activated their body cameras to record the event. The Minneapolis police chief has resigned over this matter.
This clearly seems to be a case of stone walling. The investigation is going slowly and it seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. The officer who fired the shot is protected by his right to the fifth amendment and may remain silent indefinitely. Without a conclusion to the investigation, the prosecutor will be unable to lay a charge and put the matter to a court for resolution.
Perhaps the prosecution is approaching this from the wrong angle. The bullet has been recovered from the deceased's body and matched to the police officers weapon. The way is open for the prosecutor to lay a charge of " feloniously discharging a firearm that caused a death ".
Clearly, this is not a murder case. The deceased and the police officer are strangers to one another and the reason the officer fired a shot is as yet unknown, but by laying this charge the culprit is obliged to present a defence to a judge and jury because there is clear evidence that it was a bullet from his weapon that caused a death.
No matter whether it is a police officer or a civilian, when a firearm is discharged that causes a death the person who discharged that firearm has a case to answer. If there are mitigating circumstances that will be taken into consideration in evaluating both the criminality - and the punishment.
This police officer was issued with a firearm which remained in his care, and that firearm brought about the death of another person. If that firearm was in the possession of another person at that time the name of that person must be revealed and the reason for that possession stated. The onus of proof is clearly on the person with control of the weapon to explain its use.
The protection of the fifth amendment remains, but instead of the prosecution needing to prove guilt, the defence now has to prove either innocence, or a reason for pulling that trigger. The sheer logic of such a prosecution is that it eliminates the human factor in evidence evaluation to shield a guilty colleague.
That is perhaps the only way this particular case will reach resolution !
The prosecutor has complained that " the investigation has not been done to his satisfaction or even to the expected levels of accuracy" and there is yet no basis for a prosecution. The officer who fired the shot has invoked the fifth amendment and refuses to be interviewed and his partner in the car was not being helpful. Neither had activated their body cameras to record the event. The Minneapolis police chief has resigned over this matter.
This clearly seems to be a case of stone walling. The investigation is going slowly and it seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. The officer who fired the shot is protected by his right to the fifth amendment and may remain silent indefinitely. Without a conclusion to the investigation, the prosecutor will be unable to lay a charge and put the matter to a court for resolution.
Perhaps the prosecution is approaching this from the wrong angle. The bullet has been recovered from the deceased's body and matched to the police officers weapon. The way is open for the prosecutor to lay a charge of " feloniously discharging a firearm that caused a death ".
Clearly, this is not a murder case. The deceased and the police officer are strangers to one another and the reason the officer fired a shot is as yet unknown, but by laying this charge the culprit is obliged to present a defence to a judge and jury because there is clear evidence that it was a bullet from his weapon that caused a death.
No matter whether it is a police officer or a civilian, when a firearm is discharged that causes a death the person who discharged that firearm has a case to answer. If there are mitigating circumstances that will be taken into consideration in evaluating both the criminality - and the punishment.
This police officer was issued with a firearm which remained in his care, and that firearm brought about the death of another person. If that firearm was in the possession of another person at that time the name of that person must be revealed and the reason for that possession stated. The onus of proof is clearly on the person with control of the weapon to explain its use.
The protection of the fifth amendment remains, but instead of the prosecution needing to prove guilt, the defence now has to prove either innocence, or a reason for pulling that trigger. The sheer logic of such a prosecution is that it eliminates the human factor in evidence evaluation to shield a guilty colleague.
That is perhaps the only way this particular case will reach resolution !
Monday, 1 January 2018
Codeine Withdrawn From Sale !
Expect to see empty shelves in the painkiller aisle of most chemists this new year. From February 1, a new law comes into effect which will require a doctors prescription for products which contain Codeine. Until now, these have been freely available over the counter and this law change is expected to generate a rush to stockpile by many users.
This will come as a shock to many people. Familiar names such as Panadeine and Nurafen Plus are as freely bought for those suffering pain just as Vegemite is regarded on supermarket shelves. In the eyes of many, it it completely harmless, and yet there has been growing concern in medical circles that constant use is leading to Codeine addiction.
Those same medical circles advise that Codeine should be restricted to no more than three days use in a row but so many people have a nagging injury that causes them to use a hundred tablets a day, bought from various pharmacies. Codeine is often used because it is a familiar brand and other drugs that do not contain Codeine do exactly the same job of pain relief. It is used not only in tablet form, but is present in many cough mixtures and flu medications.
Adding to the alarm, in the illicit drug scene teenagers have discovered that Codeine can produce that desired " high " and as a result quantity limitations have been put in place to restrict over the counter sales. It is hoped that requiring a doctors prescription will put a dent in the illicit drug scene and steer many pain sufferers onto safer medication.
Long term Codeine abuse can cause liver damage, induce stomach perforation and internal bleeding, kidney failure, heart attacks and hyperventilation. Many who overuse Codeine do not realise that this addiction has taken hold until they suffer withdrawal symptoms that appear when use is discontinued.
Products affected by the change include popular pain killers Panadeine and Nurafen Plus, Mersyndol and cough and flu products under the brands Demazin and Codral. Precisely the remedies we reach for each winter when the flu season strikes.
From February 1 those in need of pain relief will still have access to products containing paracetamol and ibuprofen and it is likely that with the withdrawal of Codeine drug companies will reformulate their products to meet this new law. The medical people assure us that these alternatives are equally effective in managing pain but are no longer addictive.
There is an added bonus. Those who have been taking Codeine long term and suffer withdrawal symptoms may be induced to consult a doctor seeking a Codeine script. Often, the cause of pain is not being treated and is simple masked by the use of pain killers. With proper treatment of the cause, in many cases the need for pain relief is terminated or sharply reduced.
The Therapeutic Goods Association has taken this action by compelling evidence of the harm caused by overuse and abuse. A lot of familiar brands will disappear from Chemists shelves, but the relief of pain will not have been compromised. Products that do the job as well as Codeine are still available, but without the addiction risk.
This will come as a shock to many people. Familiar names such as Panadeine and Nurafen Plus are as freely bought for those suffering pain just as Vegemite is regarded on supermarket shelves. In the eyes of many, it it completely harmless, and yet there has been growing concern in medical circles that constant use is leading to Codeine addiction.
Those same medical circles advise that Codeine should be restricted to no more than three days use in a row but so many people have a nagging injury that causes them to use a hundred tablets a day, bought from various pharmacies. Codeine is often used because it is a familiar brand and other drugs that do not contain Codeine do exactly the same job of pain relief. It is used not only in tablet form, but is present in many cough mixtures and flu medications.
Adding to the alarm, in the illicit drug scene teenagers have discovered that Codeine can produce that desired " high " and as a result quantity limitations have been put in place to restrict over the counter sales. It is hoped that requiring a doctors prescription will put a dent in the illicit drug scene and steer many pain sufferers onto safer medication.
Long term Codeine abuse can cause liver damage, induce stomach perforation and internal bleeding, kidney failure, heart attacks and hyperventilation. Many who overuse Codeine do not realise that this addiction has taken hold until they suffer withdrawal symptoms that appear when use is discontinued.
Products affected by the change include popular pain killers Panadeine and Nurafen Plus, Mersyndol and cough and flu products under the brands Demazin and Codral. Precisely the remedies we reach for each winter when the flu season strikes.
From February 1 those in need of pain relief will still have access to products containing paracetamol and ibuprofen and it is likely that with the withdrawal of Codeine drug companies will reformulate their products to meet this new law. The medical people assure us that these alternatives are equally effective in managing pain but are no longer addictive.
There is an added bonus. Those who have been taking Codeine long term and suffer withdrawal symptoms may be induced to consult a doctor seeking a Codeine script. Often, the cause of pain is not being treated and is simple masked by the use of pain killers. With proper treatment of the cause, in many cases the need for pain relief is terminated or sharply reduced.
The Therapeutic Goods Association has taken this action by compelling evidence of the harm caused by overuse and abuse. A lot of familiar brands will disappear from Chemists shelves, but the relief of pain will not have been compromised. Products that do the job as well as Codeine are still available, but without the addiction risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)