Author: admin

Purpose 
With the summer music festivals on the horizon after a few years of cancelled or otherwise disrupted events, the public and political debate about pill testing services (also described as ‘drug checking’) has once again gathered momentum. As a result, you have been asked to write a formal submission for an upcoming Victorian Government Inquiry, which is exploring the possibility of introducing pill testing services at outdoor music festivals and nightclubs. Your submission can be either for or against the introduction of these services. However, either way, you are required to justify your perspective with an evidence-based argument in persuading policymakers to accept your stance. You can assume that your intended audience are intelligent and understand the basic ideas and aims of pill testing, but are perhaps unfamiliar with how it works in practice (and therefore may need some brief guidance on how it is actually conducted).
For this short written response, you are asked to write an 800 word (+/-10%) formal submission that explains and justifies your position. Regardless of your ultimate argument, make sure you demonstrate an understanding of some of the core principles underpinning harm reduction approaches in your submission.
Instructions
For this submission you are strongly encouraged to undertake some further research into pill testing debates, as this may certainly help you develop and strengthen your argument. Has pill testing been trialled or implemented (or rejected) elsewhere? With what outcomes? How did advocates persuade policymakers in those settings? What resistance and counter-arguments were presented?
While an essay style format is not required for this short submission, it is nonetheless worthwhile aiming for a reader-friendly, logical flow that offers rigorous evidence, demonstrates understanding of harm reduction principles (that is, the general philosophy and subsequent practices of harm reduction), and exhibits clear writing. Using sub-headings is fine if that helps in presenting a logical structure and assisting the reader follow your argument. ‘Pill testing’ and ‘drug checking’ are largely interchangeable terms, so either is perfectly fine to use in your submission (but increasingly these days experts tend to prefer ‘drug checking’).
If it helps in crafting your argument, at the start of your submission you can specify what organisation you are representing. For example, are you arguing from the perspective of Pill Testing Australia? Harm Reduction Victoria? Victoria Police? The Australian Medical Association? The UNSW National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre? Students for Sensible Drug Policy? Or another organisation? It’s not required that you represent an organisation in your submission, but some students find it helpful in focussing their argument. 
Assessment criteria
In completing the short written response, you should seek to demonstrate the following marking criteria (though all are crucial, these are ordered in their relative level of importance and priority):
Critical engagement: Thoughtful engagement and reflection upon this complex issue, demonstrating understanding of contrasting perspectives, and presenting an overall persuasive, logically ordered argument.
Conceptual understanding: Demonstrating a thorough understanding of harm reduction principles, along with any other key ideas or concepts that emerge in your submission.
Research and referencing: In developing an evidence-based argument, draws upon 8 high-quality academic sources (e.g. journal articles), and appropriately references these texts using APA. Reference lists are not included in the word count, but in-text citations are included.
Writing and clarity: Provides a clear and concise response that may prove persuasive to legislators and policymakers, free of spelling and grammatical errors, and with reader-friendly formatting (e.g. use of paragraphs to help separate aspects of your argument in ways that help the reader follow along).
Other Important info
Distinguish between different drugs according to their classification, composition and effects (SILO 1).
Identify and assess key approaches to the regulation of drugs and drug use (SILO 2).
Recognise and communicate how social, economic and political factors have shaped the development of drug distribution, locally and globally (SILO 3).
Critically reflect in a well-informed manner on the social, political, economic and ethical challenges involved in formulating approaches to drugs and drug use (SILO 4).

Week 4 Project: Case Study
The Asian Tsunami
On December 26, 2004, an undersea earthquake with a magnitude of 9.3 on the Richter scale occurred off the west coast of Indonesia. It triggered a devastating tsunami (known as the Asian Tsunami). With waves exceeding 100 feet, this tsunami killed more than 275,000 people in 11 countries. This international incident was one of the deadliest natural disasters in modern history.
Research and assess the destruction brought about by the Asian Tsunami. Design an emergency management plan for the purpose of protecting an American coastal city from the same type of disaster. Consider the short length of warning time in a disaster such as a tsunami.
Your plan must be comprehensive and address the fundamental disciplines of emergency management.
Name your file MCJ6505_W4_A2_LastName_FirstInitial.doc. Write your plan in a Microsoft Word document and submit it to the Submissions Area by the due date assigned.