OVERDOSE AWARENESS DAY – 31.08.26 
Dear editor,

In 2001, the year International Overdose Awareness Day was founded, the world was a simpler place.

It didn’t mean people weren’t losing their lives to overdose. Just the opposite. In 1999 alone, over a thousand people died in Australia from opiate use. That’s three people a day.

This type of occurrence is no longer so hard to uncover. We have more information and, through our needle and syringe programs, better systems to warn the unsuspecting substance user about toxicity and contamination. But things aren’t going well.

For all our advances, all our improved intelligence and, indeed, responses to overdose, people keep dying. The current data (2024 statistics) makes it starkly clear. In Australia, a person dies from overdose seven times a day. That’s a person every 3.5 hours. More than double the rate at the height of the heroin glut in 1999 and 2000.

For the 25th time on August 31, people around the world will be raising their voices as one to lower the overdose death toll. Governments should listen because hard decisions regarding the redistribution of funds need to be made. Heavily weighted law and order responses are not working.

It has been a long road that led me to start Overdose Awareness Day in 2001 and has kept me campaigning for this issue for the past 25 years.

In the 1980s, as a young social worker, a mother sought counselling with me because the rural town she lived in had turned against her after her child died of an overdose. The impact of the shame she felt complicated her grief. The effect of judgement from others on her has always stayed with me.

At The Salvos, where I have worked since 1998 and still do today, I have met people who live with that threat constantly. These folk have often lost partners and friends, and, back in 2001, I saw they’d never been given the opportunity to mourn their loved ones free from shame.

Of course, lowering the rate of fatalities is also about raising awareness. Now, one of the largest groups of people suffering overdose deaths are older people, who die from taking prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines.

Why then, when we have more knowledge about why, when we are finally able to access the overdose reversal drug, Naloxone, aren’t we seeing the rates of death come down? The answer lies in the uneven way funding is distributed.

The government has wisely decided to get behind the provision of Naloxone, and everyone in the using community – not to mention their families and friends – thanks them for it.

But without other measures – the introduction of a safe supply, an increase in drug testing sites, an increase in injecting rooms – we will continue to fall short.

After 25 years of campaigning, it seems we’re looking at 25 years more. Until all those options we know would lower the risk of overdose have been implemented, we will fight on. With the number of fatalities nudging double the road toll, the stakes are too high not to.

Testimony to its need, the day has grown from a small gathering at a Salvos Crisis Centre to an international event. Ironically, my wish is for the day not to be necessary at all.

SJ Finn,
The Salvation Army
Harm Reduction Practitioner.
##

SMILE AT LIFE  
Dear editor,

The late Dolly Parton said, “If you see someone without a smile, give ’em yours.” On the Sunshine Coast, that’s practically a civic duty.

The other morning, I was strolling along the boardwalk at Coolum on one of those days when the Coast seems to be smiling at you.

Except for one bloke.

He was sitting on the bench near the surf club, shoulders slumped, staring at the sand as if it had personally offended him. Maybe he’d spilled his coffee. Maybe he’d lost an argument with his teenager. Maybe he’d tried to book a tradie.

Whatever it was, he wasn’t smiling. So I gave him mine.

Not a big theatrical grin — just a simple, friendly Sunshine Coast smile. The kind that says, “Mate, whatever’s going on, the ocean’s still here and the day’s not done.”

He glanced up, surprised. Then he smiled back. A small one, but genuine. The breeze felt lighter. The morning felt brighter. Even the seagulls seemed to approve.

We ended up chatting — nothing deep, nothing dramatic. Just two strangers talking about the surf, the weather, and how the Coast has a way of smoothing out the rough edges of a day. He told me he’d recently moved up from Brisbane and was still adjusting to the slower pace.

“People actually talk to you here,” he said. “Well,” I replied, “we’re contractually obliged. It’s in the rate notices.”

He laughed — a proper laugh this time — and off he went, shoulders a little higher, steps a little lighter.

And I kept walking, thinking about how tiny moments can tilt a whole day. How a simple smile can be a little gift — free, renewable, and surprisingly powerful.

On the Sunshine Coast, we don’t always realise it, but we’re surrounded by these small exchanges. The nod from the early‑morning swimmer. The wave from the barista who remembers your order.

Dolly was right. If you see someone without a smile, give ’em yours. It might just be the best thing you hand over all day!

Garry Reynolds,
Peregian Springs.
##

RIDDLE ME THIS?  
Dear editor,

In Wonderland does the Red Queen have a new policy and theme to lure the masses? Though sounding quite atrocious, will  super callous, narcissistic; exploit all neurosis be a winner? Too precocious? Please explain.

Margaret Wilkie,
Peregian Beach.
##

GAMBLING REFORMS  
Dear editor,

I am writing to share my thoughts on the government’s new gambling legislation

The legislation is a step forward in several respects. It proposes restrictions on wagering advertising, including limits around live sport, gambling branding in sporting venues and on player uniforms, and the use of celebrities, athletes and influencers to promote betting.

It also aims to strengthen BetStop, improve action against illegal gambling services and address harmful emerging online gambling products.

The proposal to allow people to opt out of online wagering advertising is also useful.

However, an opt-out system still leaves gambling advertising as the default. People should not have to take individual action to escape a constant stream of gambling promotions, particularly when the government is rightly concerned about online harms affecting children and young people.

In my view, the legislation does not go far enough in reducing the quantity and normalisation of gambling advertising. It does not deliver a comprehensive ban, and important advertising loopholes remain. The measures therefore represent harm reduction rather than the stronger public-health approach that many Australians have been calling for.

I am also concerned that the legislation does not sufficiently address the fairness of gambling promotions. Offers such as “100% bonus” promotions should be subject to a clear requirement that major exclusions, turnover requirements and other limitations appear as prominently as the headline offer.

Another important omission is a proper right for punters to cancel or withdraw when the circumstances of a bet materially change.

I am also concerned about the relationship between gambling companies, political parties and ministers.

As I understand it, the new gambling legislation does not itself impose a general ban or cap on political donations from gambling companies to political parties or ministers. Nor does it appear to prohibit gambling-industry-funded dinners, hospitality or political access.

Overall, I acknowledge that the legislation achieves some worthwhile things; however, it does not achieve the full reform needed. It does not sufficiently reduce the overall volume of advertising, does not fully regulate misleading promotional offers, does not establish a general right to cancel after material changes to a bet, and does not address gambling-industry political donations or access to ministers.

Colin Caudell,
Coolum Beach.
##