Search

Issue: The rationale and potential impact of Australia's recent legislative changes regulating secondary supply of alcohol to minors, particularly on private premises., Approach: An examination of similarities and differences between state and territory liquor licensing legislation regulating secondary supply of alcohol to minors was undertaken., Key Findings: The Northern Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria prohibit supply of alcohol to minors on private premises, except by parents/guardians/authorised persons. Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmanian legislation also prescribes that supply must occur responsibly and under supervision. Elsewhere, alcohol supply to minors on private premises is unregulated. These legislative changes reflect the 'familialisation' of adolescent drinking., Implications: Recent legislative amendments regulating secondary supply on private premises may indicate growing awareness of adolescent alcohol-related harms and signal a shift in community norms. However, sociocultural factors, misunderstanding and challenges in enforcing the legislation may limit compliance., Conclusions: Changes in secondary supply legislation need effective dissemination as divergence between states and territories may result in confusion about legal responsibilities. A national approach may be warranted to help set community boundaries for young people's drinking., (© 2012 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background: There have been increasing national and international calls for the introduction of drug testing as a policy measure to address harmful drug use. Such strategies have been applied in workplaces, sporting arenas, prisons and more latterly school settings. They are predicated on a belief in their efficacy in reducing drug-related harm, a need to 'send the right' message to potential users and to reassure the community at large that 'something is being done.' Rigorous examination is required of purported benefits of drug testing in schools., Methods: A comprehensive examination was made of testing efficacy and accuracy. Australian legal and ethical issues, encompassing duty of care, rights of the child and privacy determinations, were juxtaposed with that of the United States of America., Results: Evidence examined indicates no compelling case for the application of drug testing and that caution should be applied when considering drug testing as a drug detection and prevention strategy in the school setting., Conclusion: While this review did not support school drug testing, there are alternative evidence-based strategies that schools can implement to prevent drug-related problems among student populations.

A discussion of the importance of the kinetic parameters, particularly the Michaelis constant K(m), in designing an analytical kinetic technique is given. The magnitude of K(m) is shown to affect only the range of substrate concentrations accessible and not the sensitivity of the method. The limitations and advantages of the microcalorimetric method in the determination of K(m) are outlined. The microcalorimetric technique and the principles discussed were tested by application to the urea-urease system.