The Australian Heroin Diaries

SA Police Minister - Drug Dogs Massive Success (LMAO)

2009-12-04T17:29:00.005+11:00

It’s bizarre that we hear about so much success at getting drugs off the streets when in reality about 90% slip through the net. Have you ever looked closely at the figures put out when a so called successful operation is bandied about? A recent media release claiming such success in the fight against drugs from the South Australian Police Minister, Michael Wright is a prime example of under achievement being dressed up as some sort of success.

NEWS RELEASE

Hon Michael Wright Minister for Police Minister for Emergency Services Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing

Friday, 6 November 2009
Police Dogs Detect Over 1000 Ecstasy Pills In 12 Months

Passive Alert Drug Detection Dogs have sniffed out a cocktail of illicit drugs and paraphernalia during their first year on the beat in South Australia.

Police Minister, Michael Wright, said, “The three highly trained canines and their handlers have achieved remarkable results in a short period of time and they should be commended for their commitment to disrupting drug taking and dealing on our streets.”

Since new legislation was introduced in October last year the PADD dogs have been deployed on 193 occasions. They’ve sniffed out in total:

1090 Ecstasy tablets, 4 LSD tablets, 1.58 kilograms of cannabis, 17 grams of amphetamine, 6 grams of ketamine, 3 grams of cocaine, 15mls GHB 21 pieces of drug paraphernalia including an ice pipe and cocaine kit.

Along with these detections, 31 people were arrested, 310 reported and 189 referred to drug diversions with 2 arrested for hindering police.

“This should serve as a stern warning to anyone considering taking or carrying drugs in and around entertainment venues and events that they’ll end up feeling the bite.”

The PADD dogs have also been deployed to ‘dance music’ concerts at Bonython Park and the ‘Big Day Out’ concert at Wayville. Country deployments have included Mt. Gambier, Naracoorte, Renmark, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Ceduna and Victor Harbor during ‘Schoolies Week’.

They’ve been on the beat several times at the Adelaide airport passenger terminal and railway stations at Noarlunga, Adelaide, Keswick, Salisbury and Elizabeth.

The dogs have also played a major role in patrolling the State’s known drug transit routes including National Highway One, Port Wakefield, the Mallee Highway, Pinnaroo, Sturt Highway, Blanchetown, Dukes Highway, Keith, Princes Highway, Monteith and Stuart Highway, Glendambo and Marla.

These dogs are playing an important part in the Government’s attack on the illegal drug trade. Other steps taken have included;

• Banning the equipment used in the manufacture of illicit drugs
• Trebling the expiation penalties for possession of cannabis
• Banning the sale of drug paraphernalia
• Introducing tough new Hydroponics laws to crackdown on the cultivation of hydroponically grown cannabis

The Rann Government’s stance on illicit drugs is vastly different from that of Opposition Leader, Isobel Redmond.

Last year Ms Redmond, during a debate on the Drug Paraphernalia Bill, supported an amendment that would have effectively saved the bong and made the legislation pointless. It would have seen drug paraphernalia continue to be freely available in South Australia

On 10 December 2006, Mrs Redmond said in a TV interview: “I mean certainly the information is that ecstasy doesn’t seem to be as big a risk as a number of other drugs.”

Minster Wright said, “We will continue to toughen the laws and give our police whatever they need to tackle the illegal drug trade in this State, and that includes all illicit substances.”

I find the comments of politicians and some police fascinating at times especially the tough talk when an operation bombs. When is someone in power finally going to say, “This is pointless. We are not even making a dent in the black market for drugs. We need a new approach.”

The three highly trained canines and their handlers have achieved remarkable results in a short period of time and they should be commended for their commitment to disrupting drug taking and dealing on our streets
-The Hon Michael Wright - Police Minister

I’m sorry Michael but “remarkable results” means more than just 3 ecstasy pills a day or 4 LSD tablets for a whole year. Also, 6 grams of ketamine, 3 grams of cocaine and 15mls of GBH over 12 months is not worth celebrating. Even 1.58 kilograms of cannabis is lousy. What I don’t understand though is the so called “success” from confiscating 21 pieces of drug paraphernalia including an ice pipe and a cocaine kit. You have most likely sentenced someone to a slow agonising death from HIV/AIDS. Good work, Michael.

This should serve as a stern warning to anyone considering taking or carrying drugs in and around entertainment venues and events that they’ll end up feeling the bite.
-The Hon Michael Wright - Police Minister

Your successful hounds went out 193 times costing us at least half a million dollars while shifting scarce police resources away from where they are really needed. If these sniffer dogs were used at customs or the airport to find explosives, dangerous chemicals or exotic wildlife then the cost can be justified but hassling commuters at train stations and trouble free patrons of dance clubs is just a huge waste of money and resources.

His research revealed that 74% of those searched following an indication by a dog were found not to be in possession of illegal drugs.
-The Privacy Ombudsman of New South Wales

But credit should be given when it’s due so congratulations for arresting 31 people and reporting 310 others. Yipeeee! I feel a lot safer knowing that 31 dangerous thugs are getting a permanent criminal record. But there’s more congratulations. 189 users are off to treatment to rectify their immoral and evil ways. Michael, you know that drug diversion doesn’t work unless they actually have a drug problem? And if they do, they must be ready to be treated. You know this ... right? You know they take up the hard-to-find places usually needed by those who are genuinely seeking treatment? Right?

We need to be honest and direct here. The claims of success from the police minister, on many levels, are decietful and even dangerous. The sniffer dogs are expensive, invasive and have not achieved any notable success over the last 12 months. Normal, everyday South Australians are getting permanent criminal records or being sent for drug treatment which they don’t need. Prohibiting safety equipment like commercially made bongs and cocaine/ice kits increases the harm to drug users including the spread of HIV/AIDS and Hep C. Incidentally these diseases often cross over into the general public and can kill people. I fail to see how this is “success”?

To top it off, this so called media release cranks up the political spin machine by criticising opposition leader, Isobel Redmond for being pragmatic and telling the truth. Not supporting a dangerous and irresponsible proposal to ban drug paraphernalia because it would lead to more sickness and death overrides the lame excuse, “It would have seen drug paraphernalia continue to be freely available in South Australia”.

I mean certainly the information is that ecstasy doesn’t seem to be as big a risk as a number of other drugs.
-Opposition Leader - Isobel Redmond

Attempting to embarrass Isobel Redmond by rehashing a quote from 2006 is downright disgraceful. Why is it disgraceful? Because she is correct and telling the truth. Playing on the public’s fear and ignorance is so typical of today’s politician when it comes to drugs but attempting to discredit someone for being truthful is as low as it gets. This dig at Isobel Redmond is reminiscent of how the SA parliament treated the Hon. Sandra Kanck. Sandra was a sucker for the facts which drove anti-drug nutters like the SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson and local independent, Anne Bressington into a frenzy. For Atkinson, Bressington, Wright, Rann etc., it’s impossible to have a good drug policy when the facts keep getting in the way.

RELATED ARTICLES:
SCC Rules Random Sniffer-Dog Searches Are Unlawful
Queensland - Beautiful One Day ... Busted for Drugs the Next
Sniffer Dog Checks Bite Into Our Civil Liberties

WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA

2009-11-30T14:23:00.003+11:00

This is getting monotonous! As I was reading through the Kings Cross Times, I discovered yet another idiotic comment from a WA Liberal Party politician. The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC, member for the South Metropolitan Region has replied to a letter from a concerned citizen about the proposed legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003. Whilst reading the reply, I couldn’t help but wonder if this guy actually knew what he was writing about. Apart from sounding like a media release, I realised that every point he raised was untrue. How could such a thing happen in 2009? Was he fabricating the whole letter or simply so stupid, he didn’t know any better? Either way, it’s another clear example of how so many public officials are not fit to hold office and represent the people.

Reply from WA politician Hon Nick Goiran MLC to a letter re repeal of the Cannabis Control Act 2003:

21 October 2009

Dear Mr X

CANNABIS CONTROL ACT 2OO3

Thank you for your letter regarding Premier Colin Barnett's announcement to introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003.

The State Government recognises that illicit drug use is a significant problem which affects the lives of users, their families, friends and the wider WA community and cannabis-related legislation is sending a clear anti-drugs message to the community.

Research shows that cannabis use can lead to a mass of health and mental health problems including respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia.
Drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society. l have personally seen how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction. Illegal drugs ruin lives, shatter families and can create a downfall on our community foundation. We should seek to protect our fellow West Australians and these initiatives will crackdown on the plague of illicit drugs in our State.

From what you have written, you support a policy of 'Harm Minimisation'- a strategy to ameliorate the adverse consequences of drug use while drug use continues. I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use, a message I do not espouse. Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure.

Accordingly, l strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use and look forward to voting in favour of the proposed legislation.

Yours sincerely

Hon Nick Goiran MLC

Member for the South Metropolitan Region

The letter opens with the standard claim that they are sending a message to the community that drugs are dangerous. Only those who are already anti-drugs ever take notice of an anti-drugs message e.g. parents, anti-drug groups, fellow politicians and moral crusaders. To the rest of us, the message is clear ... more wasted money, more useless dribble and more mindless policies.

Goiran then explains to Mr X that research has shown that cannabis use can lead to a “mass” of health and mental health problems. They include respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia. Not a whole lot of problems compared to other dangerous drugs like alcohol or crack. Where’s the addiction, damage to vital organs, psychosis, overdose and death? The listed problems reek like an extract from a NCPIC brochure or a Daily Telegraph article that exagerate the effects using worst case scenarios. The letter conveniently ignores the fact that most cannabis users are very moderate users and rarely have cannabis health problems.

The list of health and mental health problems:

Respiratory problems: Hasn’t Nick heard of vaporisers or consuming something orally? As for the average cannabis smoker who maybe smokes a few times a week, the intake of smoke is tiny.

Cancer risk: I assume that Nick means Lung cancer? I say that because cannabis is showing that it actual helps prevent some cancers.

A major 2006 study compared the effects of tobacco and Cannabis smoke on the lungs. The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer," while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day. It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer. THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."
-Wikipedia

Abnormalities in reproductive functioning:
The effects of cannabis on reproductive functioning are uncertain. The claim that cannabis impairs male and female reproductive functioning in humans has very little support in the scientific world. Although it is wise for pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs, the bulk of scientific evidence indicates that cannabis has very few adverse effects on the developing fetus.

Schizophrenia: Sorry Nick but cannabis doesn’t usually cause schizophrenia for the average user but might bring it on in those who have a family history of mental illness. The police would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users from ever using again to prevent one case of schizophrenia in those who have no links to the illness.

Following on, Goiran explains that “drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society” and claims he has observed for himself “how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction”. What he leaves out is that the proposed laws will only make matters worse. But annoying things like facts are not a problem for Goiran and he proudly declares that “I strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use”. In one sentence, Goiran dismisses years of careful research and precise scientific studies and overrides it with his own Drugs are Bad, mmkay stupidity.

If there is any doubt left that the Hon. Nick Goiran is as thick as Colin Barnett’s forehead, then this statement will remove all doubt:

Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure
-The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC

It may only be his view but this man is supposed to represent the public. Making ridiculous comments like this is unacceptable and just further proof that Western Australia is packed with Liberal Party dickheads. And I mean dickheads of the highest degree. Harm Minimisation saves thousands of lives and gives hope and some much needed respect to those who have a drug problem. It’s success has been hailed around the world as more and more countries adopt it as official drug policy. I would love to know why it has failed? Stating that “I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use” might help explain Goiran’s logic or lack thereof. Not being able to understand the subtlety between condoning drug use and accepting the reality that people have and always will use drugs regardless of laws, highlights serious incompetence for someone in Goiran’s position. In fact, it’s a disgrace. If Nick Goiran was employed by the private sector, he would promptly be sacked and his reputation shredded. If ever a wrong message was being sent to our kids then this is it - the facts aren’t important for political decisions. The WA Libs have a history of pumping out anti-drug rhetoric which is always void of the truth and evidence. From ‘Dippy’ Donna Faragher to Luke Simpkins, from Christian Porter to the Premier himself, the spin is thick and the bullshit aplenty.

I can understand how some governments might overlook scientific research and evidence but to make contrary claims by lying is abhorrent. Remember British scientist, Prof. David Nutt who was sacked as head of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for telling the truth? The furore that followed had many hammering the government for ignoring scientific evidence about drugs and instead using the drug scheduling list for political means. The UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C drug back up to class B citing potency and mental health problems as the main reasons. The problem was, the ACMD had researched these issues and found them to have little effect on the nation and that harsher laws would be no deterrent at all. Does all this sound familiar? Maybe like Colin Barnett repealing the state’s cannabis laws for dubious, political reasons? Watch the clip below and note how many lies are told by Barnett which are then debunked by a medical expert.

How could someone stare into a camera and just blurt out so much crap? Surely they know that any claims can be checked by viewers within minutes? Any normal person would cringe and then apologise for being so arrogant and uninformed but the Barney Rubble look-a-like just marches on like a lobotomised lemming. A comedy writer could have a field day with this - a cross between Yes Minister, The Office, The Hollowmen and The Flintstones.

The days are over where we took for granted what an elected government told us. It ended when modern conservatives like neocons and the rabid right took power in the 1970s to the 1990s. They believe it’s okay to lie to the people if it’s in their best interest and helps achieve the government’s agenda. But those policies based on Game Theory didn’t factor in the internet giving access to so much factual information. Are Barnett and co. so delusional that they still believe the public will accept their views as gospel if they lie? Or are they just luddites that got lucky?

The Kings Cross Times that originally printed the letter from Nick Goiran also mentioned that a mystery female WA Liberal MP and a cohort were rude to retired Seattle police commissioner Dr Norm Stamper, who was visiting Australia for a series of speeches on drug prohibition. An article by Dr Stamper in the Huffington Post wrote about being ambushed by this mystery MP before even walking through the front door for a prearranged meeting. According to Dr Stamper, he was berated and talked down to while the MP and cohort continually interrupted to “educate” him about how dangerous he was to Western Australia. Imagine what Dr Stamper thought when some rabid right-wing redneck was telling him, a retired police commissioner and ex drug cop, about the drug situation and how wrong he is. Hmph! Those crazy WA Libs!

Some final questions: I wonder what Dr Mal Washer, the Liberal MP for Moore, thinks of all this? After all, he is one of the Co-Chairs of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. I wonder if all the WA Libs think the same way? The whole party can’t be that stupid ... can they? And finally: how are tougher cannabis laws going to reduce the state’s drug problem. Only 3% of cannabis users come in contact with the law and we know that harsher penalties doesn’t deter drug use. Why don’t the WA Libs comprehend this when the rest of the world are wising up?

Related Articles:
Cannabis/Schizophrenia Link 'Minimal' -- UK Study
WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981
The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier

Q & A: Mr. Tony Trimingham

2009-11-24T09:58:00.003+11:00

Name: Tony Trimingham 
Role: Chief Executive Officer, Family Drug Support
Date: January 2009

Tony Trimingham is a busy man. Too busy for questionnaires like this. But after several attempts and some selfish pleading, Tony finally gave in. Why would someone like Tony Trimingham use the very limited free time he has to answer questions about his profession? You would think that being one of Australia’s most public and active drug treatment professionals, it would leave him little or no time for a small blog like The Australian Heroin Diaries. But that’s Tony Trimingham for you. For years, Tony has supported the families of drug users who are so often overlooked in the treatment of drug addiction. His wisdom and compassion is legendary as is his relentless call for drug law reform and for the full implementation of Harm Minimisation policies. So what’s one little Q and A to fill out during dinner at 11.00pm when you get home from work on Sunday night?

About Tony Trimingham
Mr Trimingham established the Damien Trimingham Foundation after the death of his son from a drug overdose. A counsellor for twenty years, Mr Trimingham has assisted many families who are affected by illicit drug use. The Foundation’s working project, ‘Family Drug Support’ runs a 24hr help line, support meetings and has produced a Parent Education Kit for families with drug problems. The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia awarded Mr Trimingham an Australia Day Medallion in 1999 for outstanding achievement in the reduction of alcohol and drug-related harm.
[source: ANCD]

QUESTIONS:

Family Drug Support has some conflicting views with most abstinence only drug treatment centres? Do you find many potential members who disagree with the FDS supporting such strategies as drug decriminalisation and heroin assisted treatment (HAT)?
Families often start the journey in a controlling way and often take a hardline. Over time they often realise this is counter productive and can lead to harm.

So most of the family members we talk to over time support harm reduction strategies. You sometimes meet someone who’s locked themselves into a hardline position early on and it then becomes difficult for them to change direction.

Are your members from a wide cross section of society?
Our members come from every part of Australia, outback towns to suburban cities. They come from all economic, ethnic, religious and philosophical groups. However, it is true to say that most of the people who contact us are female (80%) most of them mothers (60%) and there are more Anglo, educated, middle class people then others. It is a challenge to reach across the barriers and reach the ones we don’t get.

Was it difficult to write your book, Not My Family, Never My Child?
Finding the time was the hardest.

Like you, South Australian anti-drug crusader and politician, Anne Bressington lost a child to drugs but she took a completely different approach towards drug policy and treatment. What are your thoughts?
Anne Bressington initially supported drug law reform and I had a constructive relationship with her, I don’t know why she changed – although I have some theories.

Do you feel it’s someone’s right to take illicit drugs?
Humans have the right to do many risky things in life and drug taking (especially illicit) is risky. While I do not condone or endorse drug taking I understand that people like doing it. With this right comes responsibility – especially to those close to them and the community at large.

Do you think a recreational drug user has many obstacles to living a normal productive life compared to someone who completely abstains?
A recreational drug user has human rights and I agree their lives should be productive and healthy. The drug user faces challenges caused by stigma and negative attitudes to drugs. Unfortunately this is a reality and families also face some of these challenges.

Some member of Drug Free Australia (DFA) say ex-addicts especially those on heavy medication like methadone don’t have a place discussing addiction treatment. Are the correct?
Organisations like Drug Free Australia look at drug use in the way they view other complexities of life – from a moral and religious viewpoint. They are entitled to their opinion but often morality takes over from evidence. When they express their often noisy opinions those of us who do operate from compassionate logic need to counter their moral argument.

Other Opiate Maintenance Treatments (OMT) in use or on trial in Europe, Canada and the U.K. have had very successful results. Should other forms of OMT be trailed in Australia like slow release oral morphine, Injectable hydromorphone, dihydrocodeine and prescription heroin?
I have always been a supporter of other maintenance treatments – the best possible being heroin – but recognise that this should not be for everyone and other treatments have their place. I would be supportive of most treatments that have produced evidence of benefit – on a trial basis.

You have very strong views about drug policy. Do you feel the government listens to your advice?
Governments do not do what I would like but I like to think that my voice – representing families – does contribute to their thinking – along with other valid voices in the drug and alcohol sector.

Kevin Rudd said in an interview that his policies would be evidenced based if he won the election. Do you think this will encompass our drug policy?
The Rudd government has said very little so far on illicit drugs – he’s opposed to their strong views on alcohol. We remain to see how evidence based their policies will be.

Does religion have a place in drug policy or treatment?
Drug policy or treatment or in fact any health policy should not be governed by religious views. Everyone can comment but only firm evidence should govern policy.

Do you have any predictions for the future of Australia’s drug policy?
I have a strong optimism that the next couples of generations will produce sensible drug policy reform. My guess is that eventually we will see regulated supply of most drugs but I don’t think this will happen in my lifetime.

Bronwyn Bishop chaired an enquiry called the Impact of Illicit Drug Use On Families which you were involved in. The enquiry produced a report called The Winnable War on Drugs. What did you think of it?
Rubbish – the whole thing was biased from the start, only selected individuals were taken seriously (the nutters). Attacks on very good people were common and outrageous and the labor members of that committed were piss weak

Do you feel frustrated by the public’s ignorance regarding drug myths and their willingness to accept misinformation from the government and media outlets?
I think the public are more sensible on drug issues than most people imaging. There is still a lot of denial and stigma but on the whole I think people are quite pragmatic.

Do you think the general public understand what Harm Minimisation is?
I think they are confused because of government rhetoric. Our policy is confusing because basically it is prohibition with a dash of harm reduction and is very unbalanced. We could have better education campaigns to inform the public about the logic of the policy.

South Australia banned drug paraphernalia and rejected a call to test MDMA for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Were these good decisions?
These are retrograde steps and it is very sad that South Australia is heading in this direction.

The Western Australian government is about to repeal their current cannabis laws. Is this a good idea?
These are retrograde steps and it is very sad the Western Australia is heading in this direction.

What do think of politicians being labelled ‘Soft on Drugs’ when they suggest alternatives to current drug strategies?
Politicians have to have knowledge about a wide range of issues and they cannot be expert on everything. Those who show interest in any issue should have their views respected. Politicians generally are poorly educated on drug issues.

Finally, if you were Prime Minister Tony Trimingham and you could change one law relating to drugs or drug treatment, what would it be?
A big question but a broad brush would be to regulate the supply of most drugs

RELATED ARTICLES:
Q and A: Kerry Wolf - Certified Methadone Advocate (USA)
Q and A: Dr. James Rowe - Lecturer at RMIT, School of Global Studies, Social Science & Planning
Q and A: Gino Vumbaca - Executive Director of the Australian National Council on Drugs
Q and A: Sandra Kanck - Former South Australian MLC. South Australia spokesperson for Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform (FFDLR)

Harsher Cannabis Laws Means Higher User Rates

2009-11-23T09:24:00.001+11:00

As the debate rages on about cannabis, we learn once again that tough drug laws have no effect on consumption rates. The latest report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shows that The Netherland’s recent cannabis use is just 5.4% whilst the European average is 6.8%. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada come in at over 8%. The world average is 3.9%. I’m not sure why they don’t have exact percentages for Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, Australia’s recent use was 9.1% which many feel is understated. Asking the public to admit to drug use while the Howard government was busy spending $millions trying to convince us that dope smokers are losers and are being targeted for arrest might have something to do with it. The 2008 official figures for the US is from SAMHSA and has recent use(12-65) at 10.3%.

These figures again raise the question ... why are some politicians pushing for harsher cannabis laws?

Note: Recent use refers to the previous 12 months.

Dutch Among Lowest Cannabis Users In Europe
Reuters
November 2009

AMSTERDAM - The Dutch are among the lowest users of marijuana or cannabis in Europe despite the Netherlands' well-known tolerance of the drug, according to a regional study published on Thursday. Among adults in the Netherlands, 5.4 percent used cannabis, compared with the European average of 6.8 percent, according to an annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, using latest available figures.

A higher percentage of adults in Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic and France took cannabis last year, the EU agency said, with the highest being Italy at 14.6 percent. Usage in Italy used to be among the lowest at below 10 percent a decade ago.

Countries with the lowest usage rates, according to the Lisbon-based agency, were Romania, Malta, Greece and Bulgaria.

Cannabis use in Europe rose steadily during the 90s and earlier this decade, but has recently stabilised and is beginning to show signs of decline, the agency said, owing to several national campaigns to curb and treat use of the drug.

"Data from general population and school surveys point to a stabilising or even decreasing situation," the report said.

The policy on soft drugs in the Netherlands, one of the most liberal in Europe, allows for the sale of marijuana at "coffee shops", which the Dutch have allowed to operate for decades, and possession of less than 5 grams (0.18 oz).

Nearly a fifth of the 228 coffee shops in the Dutch capital of Amsterdam, a popular draw for tourists, are scheduled to be shut down because they are too close to schools.

The full report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is available at r.reuters.com/vef87f

Sophie Mirabella - Another “Tough on Drugs” Looney Lib

2009-11-18T11:16:00.003+11:00

They’re at it again.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Oh dear, those silly Libs. Always harping on about someone being “Soft on Drugs” or how the Howard government was so successful at fighting the drug scourge while the Rudd government is doing nothing.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Yes, I remember the success. Like the heroin epidemic that Howard proudly announced was beaten with help from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). At the time, heroin use did drop significantly in Australia and there was plenty of back patting and victory speeches. Amazingly, Howard’s “Tough on Drugs” policy was also working overseas and countries like Australia who were supplied heroin by Burma had a record drop in heroin use. Simply amazing! Several years later though, AFP head, Mick Kelty dropped a bombshell and explained that Burma and other S.E. Asia crime syndicates had switched to methamphetamines(ice) and ditched their heroin business. Oops. Just to rub it in, it was later revealed that the use of ice had been growing for the previous 5 years and peaked around the time the government announced that methamphetamines were starting to become a problem in Australia. By the time the media and government started screaming “Ice Epidemic”, methamphetamine use had already started to decline. The short story being that whilst the Howard government was busy taking credit for something they didn’t do, ice had slipped in unnoticed ... all on their watch.

Since the Rudd government took over, the “Tough on Drugs” campaign has taken a back seat while they focus on a much bigger problem called alcohol. This is driving the Libs crazy as they had previously defended the massive alcohol industry although it causes much more carnage on Australia than illicit drugs ever will. Sussan Ley, Jamie Briggs, Mathias Cormann, Colin Barnett, Christian Porter, Barry O'Farrell etc. have all had a go at the Rudd government for not being “Tough on Drugs”. Joining this groups of desperates is Sophie Mirabella, Liberal Party Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women & Youth. Although Sophie Mirabella is already well known as a twat, she confirmed it by writing a piece for The Punch last week. In her article, she attacked Rudd and co. for being “Soft on Crime” highlighting how they have neglected to follow up the success of the Howard government and their “Tough on Drugs” policy. Well, here’s the thing Sophie ... “Tough on Drugs” doesn’t work. When you say “Soft on Drugs”, you mean being sensible, rational and following the facts. You mean reconsidering a failed policy that has cost millions of lives around the world. You mean breaking away from the US centric "War on Drugs" that has cursed that country into having the largest rate of drug users on the planet. Like I commented on the The Punch site - “But there’s the catch. If they really believe the propaganda they spin to the public then they are dumb as a hammer but if they are rational thinking adults and know it’s not true, then they are liars. Any guesses?”. My guess is that you know damn well what’s happening but you can’t get your head around addiction being a medical issue. You see drug use as immoral except for that most dangerous of drugs, alcohol. You think we are simply not tough enough on drug users and a worldwide concerted effort will produce a drug free world. Like most nutters from the far right, you accept druggies dying or being wrongly imprisoned as an unfortunate side effect of maintaining public morality. Yes, the quest for a perfect society that gave us Hitler, apartheid, jail for homosexuals, the over throwing of democratically elected governments, the loss of civil rights, a massive prison population, the stolen generation, rampant corruption and of course, the "War on Drugs". In your world Sophie, there’s no room for science or compassion if it interferes with conservative values.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Mirabella’s latest rant in The Punch is straight from a neocon handbook. It’s probably called How To Win Friends And Influence People (Using Fear & Lies). Neocons believe it’s okay to lie to the public if it’s in the best interest of the country and Mirabella wants to determine what that is. Who cares if it ruins lives? Who cares if it doesn’t work? And why would Mirabella criticise the government for wanting the term Harm Reduction included in the UN’s official drug policy? It is after all, part of Harm Minimisation which is Australia’s official drug policy. The reason is simple. The US have a Zero Tolerance policy for drugs and it was them who pressured the UN not to include the term Harm Reduction. As a neocon, Sophie believes the US is the motherland spreading law& order, freedom & democracy, free markets and capitalism, Christianity, family values & moral direction. There’s no place for Harm Minimisation in a US inspired world.

The "War on Drugs" has failed miserably but there are many Australian politicians who still want Australia to adopt more of the US Zero Tolerance policy. Funny enough, we actually do base most of our drug strategies on the US model with a dash of Harm Reduction. The call for tougher drug sentencing is purely political. Why would we want more of the US Zero Tolerance policy when the US has the highest level of drug use per capita in the world? Is this the “success” we want? Do we want 1 in 37 citizens in the criminal system like the US? Do we want special armed forces shooting innocent bystanders in the crossfire with drug gangs? Do we want millions of people unable to get decent jobs or receive government aid just because they once smoked pot? This is the reality of Sophie Mirabella’s suggestions but there’s no room for such inconvenient truths when you are busy spinning the “Tough on Drugs” line.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

On a final note, Sophie’s rant includes a classic anti-drug tactic that is rarely challenged by anyone - the reverse link. Making the connection between illicit drugs and crime is simple enough. You take something that is very popular like drugs and ban them. Huge demand creates extremely inflated prices and since some drugs are highly addictive, users have to regularly resort to crime to pay for them. Because they are banned and with so much money involved, the black market attracts organised crime who run the industry using violence and fear. This is called prohibition. For some reason, there are those who get it mixed up and say that the effect of drugs themselves cause users to delve into crime. Like a group of friends sitting around having a joint when suddenly one of them announces that she is going to become a dealer in illegal firearms. There is a good minute of silence before it sinks in. Under the influence of drugs, others soon declare their intentions for a criminal career as well. A bank robber, a credit card scammer and 2 car thieves. Incredible! But that’s drugs for you.

Tough On Crime Is An Empty Slogan For ALP
The Punch
by Sophie Mirabella
November 2009

The ability of Prime Minister Rudd and his Government to “talk tough” has never been in question. It’s the one thing Labor actually do well.

Remember that first heady year in office when they declared a war on virtually everything – from childhood obesity and whaling, to banker’s salaries, unemployment and even the global financial crisis itself?
Conveniently, the rhetoric has never had to bear resemblance to reality.

Julia Gillard talked tough during her faux stoush with the Unions, while at the same time delivering them unprecedented power and access in the workplace.

Wayne Swan solemnly warned of a “tough budget for tough times” before he delivered one of the biggest spending budgets in our nation’s history.

Kevin Rudd seriously claimed his changes to border security were “tough”, while at the same time creating a situation where the people smugglers are clearly back in business with a record number of illegal boats bobbing in Australian waters.

Heck, the rhetoric can even swing a full 360 degrees to suit the mood – declaring oneself an economic conservative one year, and writing a long treatise on the evils of capitalism the next.

No problem. Whatever suits perceived changes in the tide of public opinion. Whatever gets airplay. Or whatever suits as a distraction from other government failures.

The Prime Minister is currently “spinning” in India, where, just a few weeks back, Julia Gillard spent five days trying to reassure worried Indian families that Australia was a safe place, following violent incidents involving Indian students studying in Australia.

Ms Gillard declared that the Australian Government was tough on crime, adding: “We have zero tolerance towards any violence towards Indian students, any violence at all in our country.”

If only that was the case.

Just this week, in the Annual Report of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Prosecutor in Victoria Jeremy Rapke QC, accused the State’s judges of lenient sentencing, particularly in drug cases. In so many cases, these Judges have been appointed by Ms Gillard’s Labor colleagues.

Rapke rightly pointed out that the penalties imposed by Courts in drug cases continue to be inadequate having regard to the insidious effect drugs have on society and said that sentences should reflect “the huge public disquiet about the prevalence of drugs”.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.

When it comes to being “tough on crime”, Labor’s own policy platform also betrays them, with Chapter 7 declaring “Labor will promote the principles of restorative justice as a just and effective way to be tough on crime.”

Restorative justice? What exactly is that? A core principle in restorative justice is to “balance offender needs, victim needs and the needs of the community as well” (Bazemore and Umbreict 1995).

Note the “offenders needs” are pretty high up on that list. And that’s the sticking point.

At its best, restorative justice gives victims of crime a voice. That’s a good thing. For first offences and petty crimes it is a method of dispute resolution that can be effective if both parties enter into the process with good will.

But more and more often the principle is being applied to serious criminal behaviour.

For judges who philosophically support restorative justice that often means keeping an offender out of jail wherever possible…the theory being that they are unable to “make amends” if confined in prison.

This is an approach pretty much at odds with the “do the crime, do the time” deterrent to criminal behaviour which has long underpinned the system and reflects the sentiment of most of the Australian community.

But leniency and the philosophical belief that “offender needs” must be considered in sentencing mean we continue to see many cases where the time simply does not fit the crime. Nor does it reflect community standards and expectations.

Many Judges, like the Labor Party itself, see the principles of restorative justice as the most “just and effective” approach. That’s certainly debatable – and I don’t have the space in this column to go into all the pros and cons. But one thing restorative justice couldn’t be described as is “tough”.

So how can Labor claim to be tough on crime when their party platform says the opposite? Moreover, and perhaps more significantly given our proud history of judicial independence, Labor are appointing more and more judges who conveniently share Labor’s “go soft” beliefs.

The Victorian State Attorney General Rob Hulls is a case in point. His appointments now make up half the State’s judiciary – among them two “Lawyers for Labor”, a former Labor candidate, and four senior officials from the left-leaning “Liberty Victoria”, along with many other “activist” Judges.

Without commenting on their individual qualifications, I do question whether their collective views are representative of mainstream values. I wonder if the balance is skewed.

As a Barrister myself, I believe it’s important for the judiciary to maintain the confidence of the public by broadly reflecting the community’s concept of “justice”.

As outlined earlier, the Senior public prosecutor in Victoria also seems to think this is important.

As evidenced in some of his appointments, the Labor State Attorney General clearly does not.

Meanwhile, half a world away, our tough talking Labor Prime Minister continues to declare his Government is “tough on crime”.

Plenty of feel-good rhetoric, but reality will inevitably bite.

For some local insight into Sophie Mirabella, check out Ray Dixon’s Alpine Opinion.

Related Articles:
Sophie Mirabella, tough on crime, the war on drugs, blather about liberal softies, and a black dull Friday the 13th indee - Loon Pond
The Liberal Party on Drugs
Jamie Briggs - The MP Who Drank the Kool Aid with Lolly Water
Liberal Party Can't Shake Off Howard's Australia
The Unwinnable War On Dickheads

Bipartisan Politicians Aim for Permanent Injection Centre in NSW

2009-11-12T11:41:00.004+11:00

It would be safe to assume that when The Christian Democratic Party, Drug Free Australia (DFA), the right wing media and silly conservative politicians agree on a drug related initiative then we should probably take the opposite approach. Even more so when there is ample scientific evidence that the initiative is a success. For 8 years now, the NSW government has been stalling the decision to make the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross permanent because of nutty, anti-drug warriors like DFA, John Howard, Fred Nile, Miranda Devine, Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, Peter Debnam, Christopher Pyne etc. But is that about to change? According to Andrew Potts of the Sydney Star Observer, there might be action on the horizon.

Political Support For Injecting Centre
By Andrew M Potts
Sydney Star Observer
November 2009

Politicians both state and federal and from across the political divide have come together to support a call to make the Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) a permanent part of NSW Health’s response to drugs.

Members of the Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform gave their unanimous support for a motion in favour of the Centre moved by the federal Independent Member for Lyne, Rob Oakeshott.

“In accepting the valuable research and evaluation findings, this representative group of the members of Australian parliaments asks the NSW Government to expedite the end of the eight-year trial status of the MSIC and incorporate the centre and its service into the health programs delivered by NSW Health, due to the demonstrated benefits to individuals, families and the community,” the motion read.

“This is a cross-parliamentary, cross-party group that relies on an evidence-based approach to drug laws in Australia, not a sloganeering-based approach,” Oakeshott said.

“The overwhelming evidence from studies throughout the world tells us that supervised injecting facilities have been shown to reduce needle and syringe sharing, reduce sickness and death from drug overdose and increase uptake in drug treatment programs.”

Oakeshott said the Kings Cross centre has delivered a value to the surrounding area of over 30 times its running costs through reducing the associated harms of drug use.

“Perhaps of greatest significance is the finding that nearly three-quarters of residents and business operators in Kings Cross continue to support the Sydney MSIC,” he said.

The Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform will now seek meetings with Premier Nathan Rees and NSW Health Minister Carmel Tebbutt, as well as NSW Liberals leader Barry O’Farrell.

O’Farrell has previously pledged to close the centre.

The Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform is co-chaired by the Liberals’ Dr Mal Washer and the Labor Member for Fowler, Julia Irwin.

In recent years The Daily Telegraph and abstinence-only drug group Drug-Free Australia have called for the centre’s closure.

Drug Madness Costs Decades of Research

2009-11-10T12:26:00.001+11:00

For the last 100 years, politics, moral panic and special interest groups have shaped the world’s drug policies often leaving facts and science behind in the race for a drug free world. Just last week, Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the UK was sacked after he claimed that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. Professor Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol has long been a critic of the UK drug scheduling list, often saying that drug policy is not based on science or research but political posturing. The current UK government is the countries first administration in power to ignore a report from the AMCD and implement contradicting recommendations. The science community is in an uproar that an independent scientific committee can have their chief scientist sacked for simply telling the truth that just happens to conflict with the government’s political position. Professor Nutt and his colleagues had previously initiated several government enquiries into drug policy but each one has been shut down by members of the government when it threatened their political position. The failure to class drugs appropriately might seem illogical or just a political game by dopey politicians but the real world carnage for users is life changing. With courts able to dish out some serious prison time, addicts, users and dealers face daily the possibility of spending decades behind bars. The effects are usually devastating on the families and friends involved.

Led by the US, the UN has constantly pushed all member countries to support and ratify treaties with more restrictive and harsher drug policies. This led to various treaties for different regions but they were eventually wrapped into The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs with The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances following a decade later. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances later expanded the two existing treaties to better tackle global organised crime and place more pressure on consumer countries to arrest drug users and addicts instead of just the manufacturers, suppliers and dealers. Yes, you read that right ... a concerted effort to arrest more users and addicts.

... each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.
-The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

The reliance on extreme and harsh punitive measures to manage drug policies has created a massive artificial, illegal industry worth $400 billion dollars a year. It also created a world living in fear. It started in the early 1900s when authorities arrested doctors who prescribed opiates for addiction and continued to the current day restrictions on medical research involving illicit drugs. Drugs that held great promise for various ailments were often forced unnecessarily onto the most dangerous list when they became popular for recreational use by the public. Doctors are hesitant to prescribe strong painkillers for fear of being targeted by the over zealous authorities. Substitution treatment for heroin addicts is limited to a few basic opioids as heroin assisted treatment (HAT) was deemed to breach UN drug treaties. Even medical marijuana has been ignored by most countries as decades of propaganda has tarnished it’s image as a dangerous drug.

Cannabis
Strangely enough, cannabis would have never been banned had the US congress accepted the advice of the American Medical Association(AMA) and not the racist views of Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger hated Mexicans (who were the main users then) and had a lot of personal interest in banning marijuana. Incidentally, Anslinger had once claimed it’s use was harmless. Dr. William Woodward from the AMA also appeared in congress that day and contradicted every reason put forward by Anslinger for banning cannabis. But the chairman chose to read articles from the media as proof that cannabis was as dangerous as Anslinger claimed. Ironically, the beat-up in the media was the main issue raised by the AMA that said the US media was not basing their articles on any evidence whatsoever and none of their claims have ever been scrutinised by research. It’s worth noting that the owner of the newspapers that printed these stories was William Randolf Hearst who had huge financial interests in closing down the hemp industry. He was also a well known racist who hated Mexicans as much as Anslinger. After ignoring any science put forward by the AMA, the bill was passed. When the bill went to the floor of the house to be approved another incredible incident helped seal the fate of cannabis and hemp.

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth(Woodward) came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

-Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant

Although 15 states in the US now support medical marijuana which treats millions of patients, it is still listed as a schedule I drug.

Schedule I Drug:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

As you can see, points B and C simply do not apply to cannabis. This is an example of how outdated and obsolete that drug scheduling is in it’s current form. Since drug laws and punishment are usually based on scheduling a huge array of issues are distorted including crime, sentencing and research.

Although cannabis is classed as having “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” , there are many claims about it being a miracle treatment for all sorts of conditions, including cancer. From Ricky Simpson to Harvard University, claims of cannabis fighting cancer cells or even being a cure have been circulating since the 1960s. According to the BBC in their health section, cannabis helps reduce the side effects of chemotherapy by allowing patients to regain their appetite quickly and reduce nausea. For these reasons, it is also used for AIDS patients with Wasting Disease. Cannabis also helps treat multiple sclerosis, menstrual cramps, depression, mood disorders, glaucoma, asthma, strokes, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, alcoholism and insomnia. However, according to the BBC there are side effects and the “opponents of the use of cannabis” point out - it damages the ability to concentrate. If these “opponents of the use of cannabis” get their way, all the people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis etc. can concentrate all the better on dying a slow, painful death.

Apart from marijuana, other drugs listed in the US as schedule I are heroin, mescaline, MDMA(ecstasy), GHB, LSD and psilocybin(magic mushrooms). You might notice that some of these drugs don’t fit the criteria very well especially point B that says, The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. MDMA, LSD and psilocybin were showing great potential when used during the 1960s and 1970s for various psychiatric studies and physiological therapy. But like all drugs that become popular for recreational use, they were quickly banned in a bid to protect the public from harming themselves. In their haste though, the science community were also mostly denied access to these drugs regardless of their potential medical use.

Prof Roland Griffiths at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore Maryland recently published a study of 36 healthy volunteers who were given psilocybin and then observed in the lab. The participants' ages ranged from 24 to 64 and none had taken hallucinogens before. When the group were interviewed again 14 months later 58% said they rated the experience as being among the five most personally meaningful of their lives, 67% said it was in their top five spiritual experiences, and 64% said it had increased their well-being or life satisfaction.
-The Guardian: Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses

Prior to the popularity of these new hallucinogenic drugs for recreational use, they were considered to be cutting edge science. They helped scientists better understand the mind and how the brain works including the treatment of several conditions like alcoholism. The potential was exciting for the many scientists who were exposed to a whole new field and were able to treat patients that had not responded to previous treatments. But the rising use of these drugs for pleasure, especially LSD, was just too much for a conservative America and soon stories of people jumping out windows and crossing busy roads while “tripping” became urban myths. Hippies with long hair and other anti-establishment behaviour became the image embedded in the public’s mind when LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs were mentioned. Eventually the media and the government started questioning the safety of using these drugs for research with exaggerated stories of psychosis and other mental health problems. The truth is that these drugs are basically non toxic, non addictive and rarely have long term effects unless there is a pre-existing mental illness. All the success and potential didn’t matter though. They were seen as dangerous to society, immoral and a symbol of rebellious, anti-American youth.

MDMA
The story of how MDMA(ecstasy) became a schedule I drug is just one of the amazing examples of how obscure drug scheduling still is.

Most of the information available regarding street use of MDMA(in the 80s) is based on anecdotal accounts given to the media, therapists, and substance abuse professionals...
-Erowid (1987)

Without any qualified evidence, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defied medical research and used their emergency scheduling powers to temporarily make MDMA a Schedule I drug. Several medical professionals including pharmacology experts argued that a Schedule I status would severely hinder their research into MDMA's therapeutic potential. The science community appealed the emergency classification before the administrative law judge, Francis Young who recommended that MDMA be classed as a Schedule III drug. The DEA rejected the judge’s recommendation and MDMA was made a Schedule I drug permanently. Obviously the medical experts, researchers and scientists were wrong. God damn, even the judge was wrong.

MDMA - Another Case of Crack/Cocaine Disparity?
In response to a mandate from the US Congress and after weighing the views of the Justice Department, the US Sentencing Commission in 2001 increased the penalties for MDMA offences by nearly 3000%. This made the penalty for possessing 4 ecstasy pills the equivalent of having 1 kilogram of cannabis or 1 gram of heroin.

The change makes ecstasy five times more serious to possess or sell than heroin on a per-dose basis [...] This is a wholly political act, not one based on scientific evidence
-Edward Mallett - President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Opposing the new laws and armed with scientific evidence that MDMA was nowhere near the danger levels of heroin to both society and the user, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Federation of American Scientists called for a relaxing of the laws involving MDMA distribution, possession and use. They were ignored of course in what appears to be the new crack/cocaine disparity fiasco from the 80s.

The crack/cocaine disparity laws were introduced in 1986 by Ronald Reagan in response to the crack epidemic as exaggerated claims of “crack babies” and “instant addiction” hit the media. A mandatory five-year sentence was dished out to anyone caught with 5 grams or more of cocaine which meant crack users were jailed for a drug that was much heavier than it’s powder form. Incidentally, most crack users were African American and later Hispanics. The new laws copped plenty of criticism over the years for creating severe racial disparities in the prison system but for cocaine using middle America, it wasn’t their problem.

The mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread.
-TIME. August 2009

I mentioned the crack/cocaine disparity as it is a clear example of how misguided drug laws can reap so much damage especially for minorities. What’s really interesting though is that the 2001 push for ecstasy offences to be increased so heavily coincide with a White House report showing an increase in use by minorities.

The availability of ecstasy increased dramatically and more blacks and Hispanics are using the drug
-White House Drug Policy Report

And then the crunch.

We never again want another 'crack epidemic' to blindside this nation
-Edward H. Jurith - Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Is this a coincidence? A new drug policy that penalises by weight instead of dosage when the heaviest drug is being used increasingly by Blacks and Hispanics? It may sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory but since there was so much scientific evidence against these laws and with the history of US drug laws, I can’t help but wonder.

MDMA is now officially classed as having no medical value and too risky for research. How can such a potentially useful drug with a small but significant history of success suddenly be banned and placed onto the US schedule I list? How can they then increase penalties disproportionally to other drugs purely for political reasons? Is research using MDMA dead in the US?

Australia
The mere mention of street drugs sends shivers down the spine of most politicians. Unless they play the “Tough on Drugs” game, they risk the chance of being singled out as “Soft on Drugs” by the many anti-drug nutters in politics. Even those who aren’t zealots will still see it as an opportunity to attack their opposition and score political points. The sad part isn’t that it’s confined to just recreational drug use but also when these drugs are associated with medical procedures that they were originally developed for. Nothing highlights this more than when SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson bucketed Democrat, Sandra Kanck when she suggested a study into MDMA as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome(PTSS). In a public dressing down, Atkinson said the Government would "not be supporting Sandra Kanck's latest rave" and "Vietnam Veterans are not laboratory mice for a left-wing social experiment". A year later the study was taken up by the Canadian government.

How can we forget John Howard who in August 1997, vetoed the proposed ACT heroin trial. Although the trial had support from the AMA, the medical community, both sides of parliament and most states, Howard claimed it 'sent the wrong message' and refused to sign off on the proposal wasting 6 years of careful scientific research. Importing heroin is controlled by the federal government and without their approval, the states could not source the drug from overseas. Prior to the proposed ACT heroin trials, Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett had commissioned Prof. David Pennington to report on Victoria’s drug laws. He also favoured a trial of prescription heroin and his report caught the attention of the US government. US president, Bill Clinton sent a few of his heavies to investigate the rumblings of a proposed heroin trial and Prof. Pennington was swiftly summoned to a meeting. The US and their staunch Zero Tolerance policy has dominated the UN drug offices since it’s inception. Any country that dared upset their moralist and anti-drug views were called into line very quickly often with threats. Unlike Switzerland that could run their own heroin trials without fear of US intervention, Australia had a lot under the control of the US/UN particularly, the Tasmanian poppy industry. The US goon squad made it clear that the UN run International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) managed Tasmania’s poppy production levels and a heroin trial was not welcomed by the US/UN. Although the proposed heroin trial was classed as “scientific research”, drug free rhetoric was more important to the US/UN and trumps any namby pamby scientific argument. It seems that the US not only prohibited drug research internally but in any country where they can extend their influence.

It is always sad when science is stymied by ideology, religion or ignorance. The US Bush administration and the Australian Howard government are 2 classic examples of this. During the Bush years, science was pushed aside for the religious convictions of the president and the religious right who supported him. In Australia around the same time, Bush crony, John Howard threatened non-government organisations(NGOs) and other groups who relied on government funding to submit all media releases before publishing them. It was the darkest period in Australia’s scientific history with a great number of important research studies being disregarded by our own government. Instead we were exposed to absolute tripe like The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs” and government funded evangelistic groups like Drug Free Australia(DFA). The hardest hit were the NGOs who worked in welfare and of course were supporters of Harm Minimisation. Howard hated Harm Minimisation and even denied it was Australia’s official drug policy. A change of government was welcomed by the scientific community but they were soon faced with political reality when Kevin Rudd requested all media statements from government research groups be cleared with the Prime Minister’s office.

Hope?
Fortunately, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs has a clause that allows some programs to be classed as “scientific research”. Although it doesn’t guarantee acceptance by the UN it is often used by countries that want to keep within UN guidelines and aren’t in the position of being threaten with a US embargo like Australia was with the Tasmanian poppy industry. The Netherlands heroin assisted treatment (HAT) program is still classified as “scientific research” and has to be renewed every few years. Also, the Dutch “coffee shops” that sell cannabis are still technically illegal which keeps them inside the UN guidelines but they choose to de-prioritise the laws under a “gedoogbeleid” or tolerance policy. Australia has the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) which conflicts with UN policy but since it’s classed as a “scientific trial” and the US hasn’t tried to intervene, it’s free to operate but still needs to be re-established every 4 years.

During the Bush years, Mexican president, Vincente Fox introduced a bill that would decriminalise small amounts of all drug. The bill was passed in the Mexican congress but after intense pressure from the US, president Fox vetoed his own bill. An almost identical bill was passed this year under different US and Mexican presidents. Is this a sign of change? Has the anti-drug madness of US presidents like Reagan, Clinton and Bush(Snr. & Jr.) been confined to the history books to haunt them forever? Is the UN’s lack of criticism for the new drug laws in Mexico and Portugal suggesting a rethink of drug policies? Is this a new era for science?

We have lost nearly 40 years of research and potential medical breakthroughs because of the elected twats we put in power, Those who selfishly put their own agenda ahead of the millions who may have benefited by research into illicit drugs. From the US and their objection to researching these drugs down to state governments that oppose medical clinics as being immoral ... the winners are organised crime like drug cartels and some may argue the government who are technically “organised criminals”. The losers are clearly us, the public.

Scientists Study Possible Health Benefits Of LSD And Ecstacy
The Guardian
By Denis Campbell - Health Correspondent
October 2009

A growing number of people are taking LSD and other psychedelic drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy to help them cope with a variety of conditions including anorexia nervosa, cluster headaches and chronic anxiety attacks.

The emergence of a community that passes the drugs between users on the basis of friendship, support and need – with money rarely involved – comes amid a resurgence of research into the possible therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. This is leading to a growing optimism among those using the drugs that soon they may be able to obtain medicines based on psychedelics from their doctor, rather than risk jail for taking illicit drugs.

Among those in Britain already using the drugs and hoping for a change in the way they are viewed is Anna Jones (not her real name), a 35-year-old university lecturer, who takes LSD once or twice a year. She fears that without an occasional dose she will go back to the drinking problem she left behind 14 years ago with the help of the banned drug.

LSD, the drug synonymous with the 1960s counter-culture, changed her life, she says. "For me it was the catalyst to give up destructive behaviour – heavy drinking and smoking. As a student I used to drink two or three bottles of wine, two or three days a week, because I didn't have many friends and didn't feel comfortable in my own skin.

"Then I took a hit of LSD one day and didn't feel alone any more. It helped me to see myself differently, increase my self-confidence, lose my desire to drink or smoke and just feel at one with the world. I haven't touched alcohol or cigarettes since that day in 1995 and am much happier than before."

Many others are using the drugs to deal with chronic anxiety attacks brought on by terminal illness such as cancer.

Research was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s into psychedelics. In some places they were even used as a treatment for anxiety, depression and addiction. But a backlash against LSD – owing to concerns that the powerful hallucinogen was becoming widespread as a recreational drug, and fear that excessive use could trigger mental health conditions such as schizophrenia – led to prohibition of research in the 1970s.

Under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act it is classified as a Class A, schedule 1 substance – which means not only is LSD considered highly dangerous, but it is deemed to have no medical research value.

Now, though, distinguished academics and highly respected institutions are looking again at whether LSD and other psychedelics might help patients. Psychiatrist Dr John Halpern, of Harvard medical school in the US, found that almost all of 53 people with cluster headaches who illegally took LSD or psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, obtained relief from the searing pain. He and an international team have also begun investigating whether 2-Bromo-LSD, a non-psychedelic version of LSD known as BOL, can help ease the same condition.

Studies into how the drug may be helping such people are also being carried out in the UK. Amanda Feilding is the director of the Oxford-based Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust that investigates consciousness, its altered states and the effects of psychedelics and meditation. She is a key figure in the revival of scientific interest in psychedelics and expresses her excitement about the initial findings of two overseas studies with which her foundation is heavily involved.

"One, at the University of California in Berkeley, was the first research into LSD to get approval from regulators and ethics bodies since the 1970s," she said. Those in the study are the first to be allowed to take LSD legally in decades as part of research into whether it aids creativity. "LSD is a potentially very valuable substance for human health and happiness."

The other is a Swiss trial in which the drug is give alongside psychotherapy to people who have a terminal condition to help them cope with the profound anxiety brought on by impending death. "If you handle LSD with care, it isn't any more dangerous than other therapies," said Dr Peter Gasser, the psychiatrist leading the trial.

At Johns Hopkins University in Washington, another trial is examining whether psilocybin can aid psychotherapy for those with chronic substance addiction who have not been helped by more conventional treatment.

Professor Colin Blakemore, a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the class-A status of psychedelics such as LSD should not stop them being explored as potential therapies. "No drug is completely safe, and that includes medical drugs as well as illegal substances," he said. "But we have well-developed and universally respected methods of assessing the balance of benefit and harm for new medicines.

"If there are claims of benefits from substances that are not regulated medicines – even including illegal drugs – it is important that they should be tested as thoroughly for efficacy and safety as any new conventional drug."

Past reputations may make it hard to get approval for psychedelic medicines, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

"The known adverse effect profiles of psychedelic drugs would have to be considered very carefully in the risk/benefit analysis before the drugs may be approved for medicinal use," said a spokeswoman. "These products, if approved, are likely to be classified as a prescription-only medicine and also likely to remain on the dangerous drug list, which means that their supply would be strictly controlled."

Related Articles:

•Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses - The Guardian
•Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant
•Breakthrough Discovered in Medical Marijuana Cancer Treatment - Salem News
•MDMA Scheduling Hearing
•Will Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Reform Help Current Cons? - TIME
•Why the US won't let Australia reform its drug laws - SMH

CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media

2009-11-02T14:13:00.006+11:00

I’ve read some really silly articles about drugs lately but this cracker from Jackie Sinnerton in the Courier Mail needs your attention. Not for the profound message it attempts to sell you but to brighten up your day. Maybe I’m just a sucker for accidental self parody from self righteous or ignorant twats but reading this type of article really makes my day ... and makes me laugh. It’s like watching The Office(UK) where you get pleasure from cringing at some idiot trying to be something they’re not. Which reminds me, do you remember the Fiona Connolly article in the The Daily Telegraph last year titled Cokehead Should be Ashamed? If you do then you may be forgiven if you think the authors are sisters.

Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia
Courier Mail
By Jackie Sinnerton
October 2009

A FOUR-wheel-drive makes its way to the front door of a well-loved suburban home.

It's a two-income, two-child abode. Worth a million, but heavily mortgaged. This is not rock star territory.

The mother of the house follows her fortnightly routine. She checks that the kids are distracted and pops outside, takes the envelope off the driver and exchanges pleasantries.

Nothing cloak and dagger.

No names or money are exchanged.

Apparently her husband takes care of the financial business with a guy in the city – $350 she believes. They spend $700 a month.

The transaction is completed.

It is as straight forward as someone delivering the milk.

The lady of the house then rushes upstairs and secretes the envelope in her bottom drawer – away from tiny hands.

No need to check the contents – it is always the same. A gram of cocaine folded in foil paper and tucked into a plastic bag.

Back to the kitchen to prepare school lunches. There will be no mention of the delivery until Saturday night when the guests arrive.

Looking past the manicured hedges, French doors and shop-buffed people-movers in suburban driveways unearths a shocking reality.

Sarah does not use cocaine. But her story, like a script from a bad episode of Desperate Housewives, paints a surreal picture of what family life in the 'burbs can be like when the lights in the children's rooms go out.

Sarah reluctantly discloses the happenings of the night out when she stumbled upon the drug culture lurking in the shadows of suburban streets.

Sarah's family was invited to a social evening at a friend's home on the outskirts of the city.

"My husband and I were invited to a party at a friend of a friend's," she recalls. "They live in a really nice house – they are both professional people with kids and are heavily involved in the kids school functions and sport.

"Kids were invited to the party. It all seemed quite harmless to begin with but as the evening wore on I certainly got my eyes opened.

"Early on it was just like any other family barbecue: Kids were running around everywhere and parents were enjoying a chat and a drink.

"As it got later, there seemed to be a huge urgency to get the kids settled down in makeshift beds upstairs.

"Only adults remained downstairs, and they just continued to enjoy the evening with another drink.

"Then at the top of the stairs the signal came from one of the dads. It was the all-clear. All the kids, including mine, were asleep.

"I remember looking around a little bemused, and that is when a few of the parents brought out little plastic packages of cocaine from their pockets.

"I was blown away. I may have enjoyed a joint in my youth, but hardcore drugs amongst friends of friends in a suburban house! I admit, I was very intrigued.

"I took it all in. Agreements had been made between some of the couples. 'Tonight it is your turn'. It's a bit like who is going to drive home. One parent has to remain sensible in case of child emergency."

A growing number of Australian suburban homes play out similar scenarios as parents dabble in narcotics, and Queensland's suburban sprawls are not immune.

Most of the state's cocaine use takes place in the southeast corner – but it is the affluent areas rather than the lower socio-economic areas so often tainted by drug use that have been pin-pointed as a problem.

"The people at this barbecue were mostly professional, well respected members of the community who support their children's school building funds, hold down challenging jobs, and make sure their kids eat their greens and don't talk to strangers," Sarah continues.

"Thankfully the set-up was fairly controlled, and a person was allocated to watch the kids at all times.

"But my heart was racing, I could only think about what would happen if the police came. Would I be in trouble too? I decided I would grab my kids and get out, but I didn't want to look panicked, so I chatted and smiled as I made my way through the crowd.

"During that time, as I located my husband, I watched some people disappear into the downstairs toilet. But more blatantly, a couple of the men just lined up their powder on the dining room table, using a credit card to straighten the edges.

"Then they rolled up paper money, and got into it.

"It crossed my mind how maxed out that credit card must be.

"I am not a prude by any means, and have had my fair share of alcoholic drinks over the years, but by all accounts listening to the others at the party I am obviously somewhat behind the times."

For some, having a few drinks doesn't cut it anymore. Drug-fuelled Saturday nights are the way to go.

"I felt like a scared child when offered the drug," Sarah said.

"I politely declined.

"Not everyone used drugs that night. In fact, maybe less than one-third of those at the party, but most people seemed unperturbed by the behaviour."

Sarah says some of the women sensed her horror at what was unfolding before her, and tried to talk down the implications of the activity.

"Apparently that the best thing about taking the drug was that you feel great about yourself, it increases self-confidence and it is easier to let yourself go," she said.

"Certainly the party picked up quite dramatically and before leaving I saw another person go back for more.

"I remembered hearing once that cocaine can give you seizures and I couldn't help but worry that someone was going to have to call for an ambulance.

"Imagine the scandal if all these very respected citizens ended up in the police station for doing hard core drugs? What about the poor kids then?

"No one seemed too concerned about the down sides. All I heard was it makes you feel energised, powerful and enhances the libido – it works wonders for the love life.

"I did hear the words 'recreational' and 'social' used quite a lot that night. Whether to convince me or themselves, those who chose to snort were very adamant 'I hardly ever do it, it's just for fun'."

But according to the experts there is no such thing as recreational drug taking.

There is nothing but bad news at the end of the white dust track.

Coke, crack, dust, nose candy, white lady – whatever you want to call it – cocaine kills people.

It's not called "the Addicter" or "Great Deceiver" for no reason.

When absorbed into the blood stream, it is a very potent drug.

A small amount – one to three milligrams – produces extreme stimulating effects on the brain by releasing a chemical, norepinephrine, from the nerve endings.

It elevates the mood and helps boost energy levels and mental activity.

It helps you feel invincible and wipes out fatigue.

But what goes up must come down.

This state of euphoria can be followed within 30 to 60 minutes by a "let-down feeling" of depression and dullness.

According to Drug Arm counsellor Richard Norman, cocaine is often included in cocktails of drugs and is not always the primary drug used.

It is often mixed with other drugs and alcohol – adding to the toxic mix.

"It is ridiculous to think that you can use cocaine recreationally," he said.

"It depends on the person's build, but it doesn't take long before people start to yearn for that euphoric feeling more often.

"The middle-class demographic is a difficult one to understand, because they are not likely to come to public rehabilitation or counselling centres.

"I would imagine they would go to their GPs or private counsellors – there is a lot at stake. It's illegal as well as highly dangerous."

While the drug is no longer just reserved for millionaires, there can be a huge financial impact on the user if they become dependent on cocaine.

The 2007 National Drug Strategy's Household Survey showed cocaine consumption was at its highest level since 1993.

It's a risky way to get through domestic stresses.

It is possible to build up a resistance to the drug, which means people need to take larger and larger doses to achieve the same high.

For some, there can be the opposite effect – where just small amounts are enough to prompt a rush.

Psychological withdrawal symptoms can hang around for many weeks and may include intense cravings, depression, anxiety and angry outbursts.

Physical withdrawal symptoms include tremors, nausea, insomnia and muscle pain.

Not something you'd want to deal with on the school pick-up run.

So what is it with Murdoch journalists and drugs ... especially cocaine? No, I’m not talking about the hypocrite Piers Akerman and his alleged coke habit but those who suddenly write some incredible story of drugs reeking havoc on societies values? Do they feel that they must make a contribution to the anti-drug effort regardless of whether they have something to say or not? It seems that way if you read Jackie Sinnerton’s article. First of all, is this story made up? It feels like a collection of clichés, scenes from a bad novel and moral claptrap rolled into one. Seriously, someone monitoring the kids giving the all-clear, it’s OK to do drugs now ... the kids are asleep! And designated abstainer ... in case of a child emergency? Pffft. Is this really a scene from an 80s TV movie? The bit that got me laughing loudest though was the names that cocaine is supposedly called.

It's not called "the Addicter" or "Great Deceiver" for no reason
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

The “Great Deceiver”? Oh, dear god, strike me down. It’s certainly not a term I am familiar with but a little bit of research on the intertubes shows that Satan is usually called The Great Deceiver along with a few examples of various drugs. Reelizations Media produced the very popular Marijuana and Recovery Counselor Guide which references marijuana as The Great Deceiver. The California Department of Justice released a video called, Meth: The Great Deceiver in 2002 and in 1990, the US Drug Czar, William Bennett wrote an article in First Things, published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life. Here’s an extract:

I continue to be amazed at how often people I speak to in treatment centers refer to drugs as the great lie, the great deception, indeed as a product of the Great Deceiver. An astonishing number of people in treatment have described crack cocaine to me simply as “the Devil.”
-William J. Bennett : First Things - Drugs and the Face of Evil

So where the hell did Jackie Sinnerton get the idea that cocaine is commonly known as The Great Deceiver? If you think this definition is amusing then Google the other well known name, “cocaine - "the Addicter"”. The result ... oh. mmm well, there is no record anywhere of cocaine being called “The Addicter” except in her own article. The author just made it up. This should give us a clue to the authenticity of the article and what depths the Murdoch press will lower itself to. Pooeeeee! - forget all that. Who cares? It’s such a fun read and an opportunity to see how far some so called journalists will go to write an interesting story.

Coke, crack, dust, nose candy, white lady – whatever you want to call it – cocaine kills people
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

Dust? Crack? White Lady? Apart from crack being a different form of cocaine and comes as a rock that can’t be snorted, who the hell calls cocaine “dust” or “white lady”? Maybe in Starsky and Hutch or CHIPS but not in the real world down-under. Well as far as I know.

But according to the experts there is no such thing as recreational drug taking
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

There’s at least 150,000,000 recreational drug users worldwide who might disagree with this statement. And who are these experts she quotes?

It is ridiculous to think that you can use cocaine recreationally
-Drug Arm counsellor Richard Norman

Oh, not an expert but a counsellor for an organisation(Drug Arm) that originated from the Temperance Movement 2 centuries ago. Remember the Temperance Movement? Their claim to fame is alcohol prohibition in the US and the push to ban drugs.

This article is just more drug hysteria from the Murdoch press designed to sell papers and collect webpage hits. Incidentally, the article was published simultaneously with another piece about suburban cocaine use, Housewives Turn To Cocaine Abuse In Queensland. Co-written by Sinnerton and Paula Doneman, the article is filed under that infamous Courier Mail special, The Drugs Scourge which may give us some insight into the it’s contents. The article is wrapped up nicely by one reader:

Ahead of the release of new findings from the Crime and Misconduct Commission on illicit drugs, intelligence director Chris Keen confirmed that cocaine use in Queensland "is more prevalent over a wider range of demographics"....where does this say anything specific about "housewives"...the whole article is based on the suppostions of ONE man...Richard Norman who said...""I could see how stressed-out, middle-class housewives would single out cocaine to help them perform better at work, look after a family and house and still have the energy to party," Jackie Sinnerton and Paula Doneman have taken this remark and ran with it..they and the Couriermail should be ashamed of themselves..but I suppose the headline is the thing and drug addicted housewives reads better than..increase in drug addicts in south east Queensland. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I agree this story is plagiarised and deliberately skewed to target housewives.
Posted by: lyn of melbourne 4:09pm November 01, 2009
-Comment from Courier Mail Reader

The claims of inevitable problems like tremors, nausea, insomnia, muscle pain and addiction are what a hard core addict might suffer and not what a standard recreational cocaine user would encounter. Also, what has been left out of these articles is more important than what was included with much of it merely opinions without any evidence or backing.

There is nothing but bad news at the end of the white dust track
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

As cocaine use rapidly increases, the number of those requiring treatment hasn’t risen proportionally. It's probably because the addiction level of cocaine(17%) and alcohol(15%) are nearly the same. The truth is, most cocaine users take it in moderation and usually reserve it for special occasions. Similar to how most drinkers choose to exploit their drug of choice. Most drinkers don't need treatment and neither do most cocaine users.

The World Health Organisation conducted the largest ever study of global cocaine use in 1995 and stated:

Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems … a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use
-World Health Organisation Report

Sadly, this report was just too truthful for the "War on Drugs" mindset of the US and UN. The US threatened to withdraw funding for all of the WHO’s research projects and interventions unless they "dissociated itself from the study" and withdraw the publication. The report was shelved and never released. So now we are left with articles from the trash media and the constant lies and exaggeration from anti-drug zealots. No wonder we have a drug problem.

In June 2009, an excellent article by Ben Goldacre detailed the WHO cocaine report and the subsequent coverup in the Uk newspaper, The Guardian. This is a must-read article: Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US.

Related Articles:
Housewives Turn To Cocaine Abuse In Queensland - The Courier Mail
Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US - The Guardian
Journalist Should Be Ashamed
Cocaine - Australia’s Next Drug Epidemic?
CourierMail - The Media Scourge

Drug Users are Part of the Community and Deserve Respect

2009-10-30T17:38:00.000+11:00

MEDIA RELEASE
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Drug Users Say:

We Are Part Of The Community And Deserve To Be Treated With Respect And Dignity

The national peak organisation representing people who use illicit drugs, the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL), is joining with communities of people who use illicit drugs from around the world to celebrate International Drug Users Day on 1 November 2009.

In celebrating this day we are speaking as people who use illicit drugs to tell the world that we are valuable members of the community, who come from all walks of life and are people who care about the world we live in. We are proud of our survival in a climate that criminalises, demonises and stigmatises all people who use illicit drugs as worthless, selfish, criminals.

Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer stated “We are not a small and insignificant group of people; we are your family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, in short, we are part of your community. We deserve equitable access to health services, civil and human rights and same respect and opportunities afforded all members of Australian society.”

We live with the constant grief of losing loved ones due to overdose and diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Love ones whose lives could have been saved had we removed the criminalisation of drug use and provided access to an expanded range of drug treatments now available in many countries around the world. As a community we have fought hard for our right to access drug treatments that are accessible, affordable and meet our needs.

On International Drug Users Day 2009 AIVL is calling for an expansion to the range of treatment options available including heroin prescription programs and injectable methadone, buprenorphine and morphine. “The international evidence is indisputable in relation to the efficacy of these programs. Numerous evaluations have now shown that providing injectable pharmacotherapy programs has improved people’s health, their social and living conditions, their ability to participate in study and employment and reduced crime.” Ms Madden added.

AIVL believes one of the most important aspects of these programs is that they save lives. Australian and international studies have shown that people who access drug treatment programs are significantly more protected from dying due to a drug-related overdose than those not in pharmacotherapy treatment. One Australian study has shown that; one in 100 people using heroin on the street die from overdose compared with one overdose death for every 485 people for those on a methadone pharmacotherapy program.

“Australian drug users deserve access to programs that protect their lives and should be given the opportunity to choose from the widest possible evidence-based drug treatment options in order to get the best ‘treatment fit’. Furthermore, we want these choices now, not as a last option when we have hit so-called ‘rock bottom’. Being able to engage in a drug treatment option of our choice, that suits our needs, should not have to come at the price of our lives being in devastation before we are offered or become eligible for these programs” stressed Ms Madden.

Too often heroin prescription programs are talked about only as an option of ‘last resort’. AIVL is concerned that we are thinking about heroin prescription in the wrong way. It should be offered alongside other treatment options for anyone seeking to manage an opioid dependency. “We believe we should have access to the full range of treatment options available, anything less is an infringement upon our human rights and potentially exposes many people to discrimination, criminalisation, disease and death simply because we have refused to heed the now overwhelming evidence supporting such programs” Ms Madden concluded.

Media Contact: Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer on ph: (02) 6279 1600 or mobile: 0414 628 136.

Annie Madden
Executive Officer
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Ph: (02) 6279 1600
Fax: (02) 6279 1610
Email: anniem@aivl.org.au
Website: www.aivl.org.au
Mobile: 0414 628 136

Street Address:
Level 2, Sydney Building
112-116 Alinga Street
Canberra ACT 2601

Postal Address:
GPO Box 1552
Canberra ACT 2601

UN vs UN - Decriminalising Drug Use and Human Rights Abuse

2009-10-29T11:29:00.007+11:00

When the UN's top health rights official publicly contradicts the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), you know something is brewing.

Driven by the US’s "War on Drugs", the UNODC along with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) have kept an iron grip on how the world administers their drug policies promoting fear, intimidation and harsh laws. This has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths and untold suffering around the world especially for minority groups. This prohibitionist approach is also responsible for; a huge shortage of morphine for pain treatment(especially poorer nations), a rapidly growing prison population, much of the world’s crime, extreme alienation and despair for users and addicts and the world’s second largest industry giving organised crime/terrorists $400 billion dollar a year.

The UN’s policy of denying drug use is a medical issue and putting it firmly under the wing of law enforcement has been taken up differently by each country with some going to extremes. Because the UN’s drug policies is based on the belief that drug use is immoral, countries are free to interpret the moral aspect to suit their ideology or political position. Although the recent trend is to replace the moral argument with facts and science, most countries have followed the UN/US lead and implemented a harsh, cruel system to deal with drugs.

In a surprise speech, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover has heavily criticised some Asian countries for their treatment of drug users and addicts which is ironic because they are simply following the guidelines of the UN’s drug policy. Anand Grover pointed that after years of abuse, cruel treatment practices and draconian laws, the 90% relapse rate was a sign that the current system was a failure. But the biggest upset was his call for decriminalisation of drug use. Something that the UNODC has firmly rejected as an option under any circumstance.

This must come as a real shock for Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the UNODC. He has continually dodged questions about the effectiveness of UN drug policy over the years and ignored many requests to explain why countries with more liberal drug laws have far fewer drug problems than those that support UN drug policies. Costa has also fluffed off claims of human rights abuse resulting from the UN’s prohibitionist strategy. For one of his own to discredit the policies he so rigourously defends must add to his frustration of pushing such failed policies. But it’s just another blow in a long line of criticism that has followed Costa and his impotent yet arrogant support of prohibition.

Listen to an interview with Anand Grover on Radio National or read it here

UN Official Calls For Decriminalizing Drug Use
Monsters and Critics.com
October 2009

Hanoi - The UN's top health rights official called Tuesday for the decriminalization of drug use and an end to mandatory drug rehabilitation camps in Asia, which he said amounted to 'keeping sick people jailed.'

Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, made the call at a conference on international health rights in Hanoi.

'The criminalization of these practices actually hinders the right to health of all persons,' Grover said. He denounced the practice by many Asian states, including China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, of compelling drug addicts to detoxify in mass treatment camps.

There are over 50,000 inmates of mandatory drug treatment camps in Vietnam, and up to 350,000 in China, according to the Open Society Institute.

Heroin addicts who detoxify in rehabilitation camps have relapse rates exceeding 90 per cent. Most scientific experts now advocate oral substitution therapy with drugs such as methadone and buprenorphine, which eliminate the craving for heroin.

But many countries are reluctant to embrace such therapy, which they consider substituting one drug dependency for another. In Vietnam, heroin addicts are sent to mandatory rehabilitation centers for up to four years.

Several Vietnamese experts at the conference said their country was gradually moving away from the treatment center approach and embracing substitution therapy. The country's 2007 law on AIDS adopted a so-called 'harm reduction' approach to drug addiction, rather than focusing solely on detoxification.

A pilot program of Vietnamese methadone clinics began operating in April 2008. Six methadone clinics now serve 1600 former heroin addicts in Haiphong and Ho Chi Minh City, funded with grants from the US PEPFAR anti-AIDS program.

About 95 per cent of those receiving methadone have stuck with the program, said Dr Nguyen To Nhu, Vietnam program director of Family Health International, which helps run the clinics.

Dr Le Giang, a Vietnamese researcher who has studied the clinics, said the failure of detoxification at treatment camps often led to a fatalistic belief that quitting heroin was impossible.

'Many families, and even drug users themselves, completely lost their faith in treatment,' Giang said. He said many users had been inspired by the ability of methadone to restore their 'ownership of their own bodies and lives.'

Giang said there was 'much more openness, from the top level to the community level, to talk about [methadone treatment], but there's still a long way to go.'

© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com

40,000 Users Quit to Prevent One Case of Schizophrenia

2009-10-24T12:53:00.002+11:00

0.0025% - That’s the chances of preventing one single case of schizophrenia when an average user ceases using cannabis. In other words, you would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users to prevent one case of schizophrenia. For heavy users, it would require 7,800 of them to stop using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia. That’s a rate of 0.013%. These are the latest findings from scientists in the UK.

Excuse my average intelligence and lack of science degree but shouldn’t facts like this remove the consideration of schizophrenia in determining drug policies regarding cannabis? Can the cannabis debate now exclude schizophrenia? Will governments and anti-drug crusaders suddenly drop their key argument against cannabis in light of the growing evidence? Or will this study simply be ignored as they hang on to public ignorance, parental fear and tenuous links that served them so well in the past? If we use history as a guide, the anti-cannabis zealots will ignore this new evidence for as long as possible and continue to skirt around the important issues. This will suit the government just fine considering we still have some politicians quoting that old, debunked Gateway Theory as a reason why they are going to tighten cannabis laws.

The chances are that you will not read about this result in any major newspaper or media outlet. It was only a few months ago that Keele university in the UK concluded that whilst cannabis use had increased by about 400% since the 1980s, cases of mental health disorders had not increased as well but actually decreased slightly. You may not remember this news because it was not reported by Australia’s MSM or by any major international media outlet that I noticed. No wonder the public is so ignorant about drugs when our major media organisations do not publish any information that might upset the anti-drug bandwagon. Add to that the reluctance of our politicians to use these findings in their policies and instead droning on with anti-drug rhetoric from the 80s.

New Study Suggests Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia or Psychosis
physorg.com
October 2009

Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of schizophrenia in young people. But the evidence for the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis remains controversial. A new study has determined that it may be necessary to stop thousands of cannabis users in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia.

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

That's just part of the story. Interventions to prevent cannabis use typically do not succeed for every person who is treated. Depending on how effective an intervention is at preventing cannabis use, it would be necessary to treat even higher numbers of users to achieve the thousands of successful results necessary to prevent a very few cases of schizophrenia.

Matt Hickman, one of the authors of the report published last week in the scholarly journal Addiction, said that "preventing cannabis use is important for many reasons - including reducing tobacco and drug dependence and improving school performance. But our evidence suggests that focusing on schizophrenia may have been misguided. Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that many people need to give up cannabis in order to have an impact on the number of people with schizophrenia. The likely impact of re-classifying cannabis in the UK on schizophrenia or psychosis incidence is very uncertain."

WARNING! - Drug Users Being Responsible ... Again!

2009-10-22T14:13:00.002+11:00

What is it with the mention of drugs that send journalists into a frenzy of drug hysteria? Is it the journalist or is it the media organisation they are writing for that creates a maelstrom of exaggeration, panic and moral frenzy? The Australian Heroin Diaries has previously reported on some real cracker articles by Fiona Connelly, Sally Morrell, Piers Akerhead, Miranda Devine, Laurie Nowell etc. Except for the Devine Ms. Miranda, they all write for news.com.au. So what possessed Ben Harvy and Lauren Zwaans to write the article in the Adelaide Advertiser titled, Drug Dealers And Users Can Google Up A Few Hits?

Let’s see. It had nothing to do with drug dealers, nothing to do with “hits” and nothing to do with Google. That kind of spoils the clever headline pun. Maybe it’s part of the Adelaide Advertiser’s attempt to run it’s own special investigation like the CourierMail’s, The Drug Scourge from a few months back? Gawd, I hope not. Why then write about the website, Pillreports.com? I can recall reading about Pillreports.com a few times but that was years ago. It’s not surprising though since Pillreports.com has been around for nearly 10 years. So why is this news all of a sudden? There’s nothing new to report except a few comments from Drug and Alcohol Services (South Australia) executive director Keith Evans and SA Detective Inspector John De Candia. And what was the important message that commanded a whole article in a city newspaper ... Drugs are Bad mmkay! Oh, and a threat of life in jail if you are “carrying commercial and large commercial quantities” of illegal drugs. I must acknowledge Keith Evans and John De Candia though for the advice that seeking information from Pillreports.com might be rife with danger. Since the government flatly refuses to offer pill testing services (a decision they both support), the alternative is to pop away and hope for the best. Thanks for the safety tip fellas.

However you interpret the article, it’s still old news.

Pill Poppers Sharing Drug Reviews Online
Drug Users Issue Ecstasy Warning
Deadly New Mix Of Nye Party Drugs
Drug Takers Use Web To Find Best Deals For Cocaine, Ice, Heroin, Ecstasy

Inthemix.com.au wrote about news.com.au and their article, Pill Poppers Sharing Drug Reviews Online back in July 2008. It’s a great insight into how news.com.au source their information.

Pillreports.com is an international website run by Enlighten Harm Reduction, a lobbyist organisation in Melbourne. Please check them out as they provide some excellent services.

Drug Dealers And Users Can Google Up A Few Hits
Adelaide Advertiser
By Ben Harvy and Lauren Zwaans
October 2009

A WEBSITE acting as an open forum for ecstasy dealers and users is exposing the truth about Adelaide's drug underworld.

The pillreports.com website contains conversations between people about their experiences with drugs and the latest pills to hit the streets.

On the website, there are candid recommendations between users on what pills they deem "safe" to try, which is worrying experts.

Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia executive director Keith Evans said there was a cultural phenomenon emerging in which people saw themselves as "experts".

"It's a really worrying trend - the sort of culture that says `I got it from Jim. Everybody who's got their stuff from Jim has said Jim's stuff is good and therefore ipso facto I believe Jim's stuff is good, we'll all search out Jim'," he said.

"The reality isn't like that.

"Where Jim happens to have got it (the drugs) from will differ and even if you take out the legal consequences of it, you're always taking a gamble - it's Russian roulette."

The most recent Adelaide update on the pillreports website was submitted by user machetevip: "I'm going to be trying these Saturday night (ecstasy pills) and will update with a user report but so far these are looking quite good," he wrote.

A subsequent report detailed a timeline of machetevip's experience on the drugs.

"I was dancing and chatty and had some nice feelings on them," machetevip said.

There were 12 responses to the user report.

But Detective Inspector John De Candia said the health and legal consequences of illicit drug taking remained.

"Just because they're buying from the same seller does not mean they're buying from the same batch," he said. "It does not provide them any safeguards."

He said trafficking penalties in Australia for carrying commercial and large commercial quantities could result in "hefty penalties" ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment.

Syringe Exchange Programs Are Saving Lives

2009-10-20T12:11:00.002+11:00

Syringe Exchange Programs (SEPs) have been controversial since they were first officially introduced in the Netherlands in 1984. Since then, the issue of giving out clean syringes to inject illicit drugs has plagued politicians worldwide. They were faced with opposition from vocal moral crusaders, an ignorant public and attacks from other politicians while there was growing scientific evidence that SEPs prevented many deaths. It was a case of losing voters or losing lives. While most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. worried about losing lives to HIV/AIDS, the US worried more about losing votes. As cases of HIV/AIDS and Hep C. rocketed up in the US, early adopters of SEPs, especially Australia had much better success at minimising the spread of blood borne diseases.

Giving out clean syringes to drug users existed long before SEPs was made official. In 1970, the San Francisco State University unofficially gave away clean syringes as a way to deal with yellow jaundice and abscesses from shooting heroin. This practice spread to the San Francisco General Hospital and in the early days of the HIV epidemic, some doctors and nurses would leave unopened packets of syringes in clear view of drug users then leave the room expecting the packets to be gone when they returned. Looking back now, it really hits home how draconian we can be in this so called modern civilisation.

United States

Regardless of this evidence, the use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs was banned in the United States of America in 1988. Most U.S. states criminalize the possession of needles without a prescription, even going so far as to arrest people as they leave private needle-exchange facilities. Nonetheless, every state in the United States has a program that supports needle exchange in some form or the purchase of new needles without a prescription at pharmacies.These programs were introduced during the Clinton Administration but were disbanded following negative public reactions to the initiatives. Covert programs still exist within the United States.
-Wikipedia

Although the evidence has been conclusive for decades from dozens of well established studies, the US remained defiant. At least 7 attempts to introduce federal recognition and funding for SEPs have been over turned by the reigning president of the time. President Bill Clinton promised to change the federal position but his drug czar, William Mcafferey convinced him that allowing SEPs would “send the wrong message” in their fight against drugs. it is estimated that 10,000 lives and 500 million dollars in health care could have been saved during his 8 year presidency if Bill Clinton removed the ban on federal funding.

By 2000, 36% of all AIDS cases and approximately 50% of new HIV infections had occurred among injecting drug users and their partners.

I do not favor needle exchange programs and other so-called harm reduction strategies to combat drug use. I support a comprehensive mix of prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement and supply interdiction to curb drug use and promote a healthy drug free America, not misguided efforts to weaken drug laws and needle exchange programs signal nothing but abdication, that these dangers are here to stay. America needs a president who will aim not just for risk reduction, but for risk elimination that offers people hope and recovery, not a dead end approach that offers despair and addiction.
-President G.W. Bush. Annual meeting of the AIDS foundation of Chicago. 2000

The ban on federal funding remains. In the run up to the 2008 election, Barrack Obama made a key campaign pledge to remove the ban on federal funding for SEPs. In May 2009 after being elected president, the pledge disappeared off the Obama website and when his health budget appeared shortly afterwards, the ban remained, buried deep on page 795.

Australia
It started in 1986 with a group of Sydney users who illegally distributed clean syringes at St. Vincent’s hospital under the watch of Dr. Alex Wodak. Since then, Australia has become an international leader in harm reduction with one of lowest rates of HIV/AIDS infections. Unfortunately though, with over a decade of conservative governments and strong criticism of harm reduction from the media, Australia has started to stagnate, losing it’s once impeccable reputation. While SEPs remain a major part of our health system, more recent Harm Reduction strategies are being ignored or opposed by the federal and state governments. The only major exception is the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross.

In the early years of HIV/AIDS before condoms and clean needles were standard fare, the government took a pragmatic approach and spent $150 million dollars between 1988 and 2000. This prevented intravenous drug users from an estimated 25,000 cases of HIV and 21,000 cases of hepatitis C. A saving for taxpayers of up to $7.7 billion dollars.

Since then, the total lives saved and the amount of reduced costs is staggering. Surprisingly, there are still some groups who oppose SEPs and lobby the government not to increase the number of programs. The most recent controversial proposal is the introduction of SEPs into prisons but in terms of targeting susceptible groups, prisoners have the highest rate of blood borne diseases in our society. This is mostly because of a high number of intravenous drug users in prison who are also sharing hard to get needles. Those opposed to SEPs in prison use the same old reasoning that causes most of the current drug problems we have already. You have probably heard them before e.g. “it’s a prison, not a holiday camp” or “it sends the wrong message” or “we should be getting these people off drugs not encouraging them to use more” or “we should be trying to stop drugs getting into prison not making it easier for them to use drugs”. Of course, these arguments simply ignore the reality of drug use and places selfish ideology before the safety of others.

The issue is this — there are about 20,000 men and women being released every year. Many of them have got significant health problems, with blood-borne disease a major element of that. They are going in and out of the prison system and bringing those diseases to their families and their communities. Making clean needles accessible is one easy, relatively cheap way of dealing with that. It’s called public health.
-Gino Vumbaca. CEO of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Sterile injecting equipment in prisons is a no brainer just as a prison methadone program is. Access to these basic health resources is vital to tackling the spread of blood born disease especially in prison where the problem is most prevalent. Denying these services in prison is simply sentencing injecting drug users to a life of suffering or death. Each day that these programs are opposed, a few more fellow humans are tagged for an early grave.

Needle Program Success
The Age
By Julia Medew
October 2009

TAXI drivers, tradesmen and body builders are among the growing number of people using St Kilda's 24-hour needle and syringe exchange program - the only service that operates all night, every night in Victoria.

The manager of health services for the Salvation Army's Crisis Service, Sue White, said that since the Grey Street program started operating round the clock in late 2007, it had helped an extra 1000 people get clean equipment every month.

Aside from local sex workers, she said, tradesmen were using the after-hours service alongside truck drivers and a small number of taxi drivers.

Body builders who take steroids were also attending.

An evaluation of the 24-hour service by the Salvation Army and Monash University found it had contributed to a 51 per cent rise in the number of needles and syringes being distributed between August 2007 and September 2008. The number returned for safe disposal increased 26 per cent.

Ms White said the service had prevented people from sharing equipment - a practice known to spread viruses including HIV and hepatitis C. It had also exposed people to referrals for counselling, detox programs and other health-care services.

The evaluation found that since the service extended its hours, there had been little change in drug-related crime or complaints to the local council.

Ms White said other needle and syringe exchanges should consider expanding their hours, based on its success.

A Victorian Taxi Directorate spokeswoman said it was not aware of any drivers using drugs. She said it was working with police ''to identify drivers who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol''.

A spokesman for the Victorian Taxi Association said he had also not heard of drivers using illicit drugs.

''It's very surprising and a bit concerning … It's something we will look at,'' he said.

I had to chuckle at the comments from the various taxi organisations. Both spokespeople claimed they had never, ever heard of a driver that used drugs.They sounded stunned!. Why wouldn’t taxi drivers be drug users? Are taxi drivers exempt from such evils in society? In my time, I have seen a taxi driver score heroin from a street dealer, had dozens of cabs drive me then wait while I score and I even purchased speed from one taxi driver. Over a 20 year period and you would expect it to happen sometime. Their responses appeared more like an instant reaction to protect their organisation than the truth. Regardless of their reasons, it had me smiling for a few minutes.

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

2009-10-16T12:48:00.006+11:00

An update on the proposed new cannabis laws for WA.

Although the currently elected Liberals were ecstatic and clapped loudly for Colin Barnett’s plans it seems the public are not too happy to turn back the clock on the state’s cannabis laws. An article from PerthNow has attracted a whopping 544 comments to date with 99% of readers hammering Barnett’s new policies. This is most commented article I have ever seen on any News.com.au website. Also it’s not one of the main newspaper sites for Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane but Perth. Murdoch’s newspapers are notoriously aimed at conservatives and red necks which explains the negative feedback usually shown towards liberal drug issues. Why then, are readers of PerthNow raising so much opposition to tougher cannabis laws?

PerthNow had a poll that asked the readers, Does WA need tougher laws governing marijuana?
Out of 2364 votes, 43% said yes, 48% said no and 8% said What day is it?

Lies, Lies and More Lies
You might want to visit the government’s website and read their media release, Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation. Beware - it contains the usual deceptive, anti-drug rhetoric that has dominated the world’s political scene for decades.

It starts with the claim that the political enemy is “Soft on Drugs”. When translated from political babble, it usually means, “smart” on drugs via an attempt to deal with the drug issue rationally and realistically. The soft-on-drugs term is dying a slow death and is still only used by those who see the public as naive enough to swallow their spin. You may recall John Howard calling everyone soft-on-drugs when they mentioned any strategy that differed to his “Tough on Drugs” mantra. Barnett concludes in his opening paragraph that the soft-on-drugs approach “has left lives ruined”. This is a lie as drug use has continued to decreased under the so called soft-on-drugs strategy. Where is the media on this? Where is the opposition disputing these claims? To the contrary, Barnett’s tough-on-drugs proposal has been shown over and over again to ruin lives . How can such a blatant lie not be picked up?

Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

A gateway drug? The only time cannabis is a gateway drug is when users are forced underground and exposed to dealers and users of hard drugs. This happens when a government doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. But this is not what he meant. Barnett is subscribing to the old myth that cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drugs. This very claim should render the whole media release as fallacious political dribble. The gateway theory has been scientifically debunked many times over and is only used by desperate anti-drug nutters who are woefully detached from the drug issue. Even hardened anti-drug warriors have mostly given up on the gateway theory which again shows up Barnett as an out-of-touch meathead who is pushing through laws based on nothing more than his own misguided views. Where is the science and evidence behind such ridiculous claims? And again, why isn’t the media and the opposition shooting this down? Barnett is flat out lying and by quoting urban myths as the basis for laws that affect millions of people is outright dangerous.

What about the claims of schizophrenia. Suffering schizophrenia from cannabis was ruled out last year by scientists as merely the effects of cannabis mimicking the symptoms of schizophrenia. When the effects of cannabis wore off, so did the supposed schizophrenia. Psychosis was also ruled out as being caused by cannabis except for those who have a family history of metal health problems. Barnett has lied again. For such an important health related law to be passed, you would expect that some scientific evidence be provided. The problem is that the latest evidence is completely polar to Barnett’s claims and any real attempt at providing evidence would be shot down is minutes.

The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

This statement is just not acceptable from a state premier or a representative of the people. All evidence and research has shown that tough laws and penalties have never significantly deterred overall drug use in any country. Why hasn’t someone pointed out to the government that what they believe and what is true are completely different. If they really do believe this then the Barnett government need to step down now. Western Australians should not be governed by a group so obviously stupid ... and capable of such blatant lying.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS)
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN)? Just how has it failed? The main reason cited is that only 5% of those issued with a CIN attended a drug counselling course. Under Barnett’s new Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS), anyone issued a CIRS will have to attend a Cannabis Intervention Education course or face further charges. Again, a lack of understanding from the government has cannabis users earmarked as drug addicts or needing drug counselling. This is ludicrous as cannabis causes far fewer problems for users and society as does alcohol, which is legal and freely available to adults. Cannabis is not addictive and very few people end up with a dependency problem. Alcohol on the other hand is highly addictive and over a million people are classed as problem drinkers. Wouldn’t it make more sense to force those involved in alcohol related offences to be sent to counselling?

The elephant in the room is still the unanswered question - if the current policy is working why change it? Apart from the excuse that only 5% of those issued a CIN actually go to a drug counselling class, Barnett has simply said that the previous laws are soft-on-drugs. The way I see it is that it all boils down to Barnett’s personal views and modern conservative ideology. That or the South Park send up of anti-drug warriors and their simpleton approach ... drugs are bad, mmkay. There is no actual new evidence or findings to warrant these new drug laws. If anything, new strategies should be put on trial that follow the success of the current laws. The amounts seem fine at 30 grams and 2 plants and don’t need increasing but maybe we should consider legalising the 2 home grown plants for personal use. This would certainly remove many dealers and keep users away from them. There’s a whole range of ideas that could be implemented using proper, scientific monitoring to find the right balance between public acceptability and the right to use a relatively safe drug. The benefits would include the reduction of drug dealers, crime and unnecessary criminal records.

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Should we be going back to laws drafted 28 years ago? Worldwide experience has clearly shown that drug laws from the 1980s have caused societal carnage and ruined millions of lives including many preventable deaths. To ignore these facts is downright criminal and condemns many Australians to a life of misery. The 28 year old laws are steeped in ignorance and “Just Say No” drug hysteria which might appeal to Barnett and his troupe of silly old men but they should be left to history as a reminder of what not to do.

What we knew back then is a fraction of what we know today. Science and evidence based research has replaced ideology and moral panic. The many myths created back then have been debunked or laughed off and many of the policies have been the most unsuccessful ever put into law. For a current government to try and re-establish these dangerous and failed policies should send shock waves through the community. It appears that a large percentage of Western Australians understand the ramifications of such foolish actions and will undoubtedly be heard in the next election.

Sun 11 October, 2009
Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation [link]

Portfolio: Premier

New anti-cannabis laws will mark the start of the Liberal-National Government’s fight to turn around eight years of a soft-on-drugs approach by the previous Labor government which has left lives ruined.

Premier Colin Barnett today announced the Government would this week introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003 and make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Young Offenders Act 1994, sending a clear message that the current State Government did not endorse illicit drug use.

Mr Barnett said the cannabis-related legislation was the first in a series of steps the Government would take to send a clear anti-drugs message to the community and toughen penalties for people who broke the law through drug-related offences.

According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, cannabis was the most widely used illicit drug in Western Australia with an annual usage rate of 10.8 per cent.

“The Liberal-National Government is committed to tackling both the demand and supply sides of the illicit drug problem through strong law enforcement policies, education and rehabilitation,” the Premier said.

“Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.

“The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs, but we also recognise the existence of a criminal record has a serious impact on a person’s future employment prospects. At present, once a conviction is recorded, it remains on a person’s criminal record for at least 10 years.

“Under the Government’s proposed laws, a person convicted of minor cannabis possession offences will be able to apply to have a conviction spent after three years, provided they are not convicted of further offences during that period.

“This approach ensures minor drug offenders who demonstrate they are prepared to take responsibility and rehabilitate themselves are given an opportunity to turn their lives around.”

The new cannabis-related laws will:

• prosecute the possession of more than 10 grams of cannabis. This is a reduction from the previous Labor government’s stance where prosecution only occurred when it was more than 30 grams
• result in subsequent offences for possession being prosecuted as criminal offences
• prosecute people for cultivating cannabis plants. Under the previous Labor government’s regime, people could grow two cannabis plants per person, per household without facing criminal charges
• make it illegal for cannabis smoking implements to be sold to anyone, including adults. Currently it is only an offence to sell these implements to children
• increase fines for the sale of smoking implements. The new laws will allow for fines of up to $5,000 for sale to an adult and up to $10,000 for sale to a minor. Bodies corporate will be fined equivalent to five times these amounts.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS).

“The CIRS has a primary focus on education and takes a firm, yet compassionate, approach to people found to be in possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis,” Mr Barnett said.

“Under the new scheme, anyone caught will have no option but to attend a Cannabis Intervention education session within 28 days of the offence or face prosecution through the courts.

“Unlike the soft system we have inherited where people can be issued with infringement notices ad nauseam, juveniles will only be eligible for two notices and adults for one.

“After that they will be prosecuted for further offences.”

A person will not be eligible for a CIRS if they are caught cultivating or in possession of plants.

The new CIRS sessions will differ significantly from the current CIN scheme because:
offenders will not have the option of just paying the fine and avoiding the education session
if a person fails to attend the session they will be prosecuted.
This year, under the soft system the Liberal-National Government inherited from Labor, only five per cent of offenders actually participated in an education session.

The Premier said further anti-drug legislation would be introduced in coming months.

“The next steps will be to amend legislation to enable courts to impose a harsher sentence on dealers who sell or supply illicit drugs to children, irrespective of the location of the sale or supply,” he said.

“Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 will provide offences for exposing children to harm or to the danger of serious harm from the manufacture of illegal drugs, such as amphetamines, or the unlawful cultivation of illegal hydroponically-grown plants.

“The Government will also move to ban the sale of drug paraphernalia, including cocaine kits.”

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.

With the repeal of the Act, all registered Cannabis Infringement notices will be deemed ‘paid’ after they have been registered with the Fines Enforcement Registry for 12 months. This will allow police to destroy their cannabis stockpile which is retained for evidentiary purposes.

Premier's office: 9222 9475

Prohibition - Britney Spears Style

2009-10-13T13:28:00.000+11:00

From the sublime to the ridiculous...

It seems that our Britney is not taking any chances in her quest to remain clean from drugs and alcohol. Apparently as part of her child custody agreement, she has made it compulsory for the huge crew on her current tour to sign a contract that prohibits the use of drugs or alcohol. I get the drug ban but alcohol is still legal as far as I know. But there’s more bad news for Britney’s staff. They can’t even have a glass of wine or beer with dinner ... including their days off! And just in case anyone plans to be sneaky, her crew must be available for random drug and alcohol tests.

I know that the behaviour of others can have an impact on your attempts to remain clean and sober but WTF? I’m surprised she didn’t make the audience sign an agreement that they were free from mind altering substances. I wonder if she ran this idea past the Australian consulate? Or possibly the UN? I know, I know ... leave Britney alone. The problem is that this time Britney is not stressed out by forgetting her undies or having her head shaved in public. She is making these decisions with a supposedly clear, substance free mind.

Maybe Britney should have stayed on drugs?

Spears Demands Drug Tests
The Straits Times
October 2009

SYDNEY - POP STAR Britney Spears is reportedly demanding her support crew endure random drug tests during her current tour of Australia, reported Australian media outlets.

The ban is part of a confidential contract that outlaws alcohol and drugs on her tour and also covers the 150 Australian staff that have joined her 277-strong touring crew, reported the Sunday Herald Sun.

'Britney's rule is clear - zero tolerance,' a well-placed concert industry source said. 'No drink. No drugs. If you do not comply, you do not tour with Britney.' The blanket alcohol ban reportedly extends to drinking beer or wine with a meal, even on days off.

Spears' sold-out Circus tour will perform in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth in November.

The strict policy is part of Spears' child custody agreement. Sons Sean Preston, 4, and Jayden James, 3, will travel to Australia with Spears. Her ex-husband, Kevin Federline, will also be in the tour entourage, reported the Sunday Herald Sun newspaper.

The newspaper saw the confidential contract, reporting that it states: 'No alcohol. No drugs. These are terms of being on this tour.' Anyone found breaching those terms would have their contract terminated. It also said everyone on Spears' Circus tour is subject to random drug and alcohol tests. Those who sign the contract are bound by a confidentiality agreement.

The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead

2009-10-12T12:19:00.001+11:00

After months of threatening us that he will prove without doubt that he is a dickhead, WA Premier Colin Barnett has finally done it. Yes, Colin Barnett is now officially a first class, top notch dickhead. While we all secretly knew it as he continued with his promise to wind back the successful drug strategies of the previous government, we can now be safe in the knowledge that Barnett is indeed, a dickhead. But let’s not mince words here. Barnett is more than a dickhead, he’s a bumbling, self righteous, agenda driven, fat fuckwit.

Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.
-The Australian

At yesterday's state Liberal conference, Barnett gave a rousing speech that had fellow Libs frothing at the mouth. His “Tough on Crime” election promise was finally being given the go ahead with the introduction of several new “tough” laws “in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs”. The problem is that in his haste to be “tough” on thugs, street crime and violence, he has forgotten to tell us that it is really about cannabis. His sweeping statements about weapons and violence were intermingled with the supposed danger of cannabis. But the real reason for bringing the new stop and search laws is not about thugs and weapons but catching drug users. Imagine if he announced that WA is enacting the toughest stop and search laws in Australia to catch pot smokers?

The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett

All the rhetoric in the world doesn’t change the fact that the effects of cannabis cause no violence on the streets, street crime nor does it make thugs out of people. That honour goes to alcohol. But this isn’t about the facts associated with cannabis use. It’s about his personal views and ideology, his political position and his inability to separate fact and fiction. For dickheads like Barnett, the real world is broken and only a conservative utopia will save mankind from moral collapse. Most of societies problems are because of drugs and a lack of “family values”. Violence, corruption and ecological carnage is secondary.

He (Colin Barnett) accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives
-The Australian

Ironically, under the current drug policy introduced by the previous government, cannabis use is declining and less people are unnecessarily given a criminal record. What is the government trying to achieve by changing the drug laws? This has never been answered by the Barnett government but instead replaced with the usual anti-drug rhetoric we have become accustomed to over the last 4 decades. It also comes at a time when the world trend of many countries is to follow science and evidence by decriminalising or considering the legalisation of cannabis. Arguments against cannabis have been greatly diminished in the last 12 months with research showing that links to mental health problems are non existent for those without pre-existing conditions. And like the Gateway Theory, claims of today’s cannabis being 10-20 times as potent have been debunked. Even that old myth that cannabis makes users lazy and unmotivated has been disproved. The real crunch is that the legal drug alcohol is much, much more harmful and dangerous than cannabis.

We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett

So, what is Barnett and his band of merry men going to achieve by being tough on crime? Under all the hype, there is officially only one non-drug related new law - being able to search people without a reason. But we know the real agenda for this. The “tough on crime” speech was really about cannabis. Barnett has proved how far he will go to push his misguided views onto the public. But this is not just about some fat, over paid dickhead putting in place silly laws but the serious, real world consequences of his actions. Banning drug paraphernalia will lead to some serious problems for drug users. Having access to properly made crack pipes stop the spread of blood born disease like HIV/AIDS and Hep C. Purchasing a bong will stop users making their own which can give off dangerous fumes from plastic containers. To be blunt, not having these products kill people. Lowering the amount of cannabis that someone can carry will drive up the rate of convictions. Again, normal, responsible adults are facing jail or a criminal record. The previous limit of 30 grams covered those who bought the common amount of an ounce or half an ounce. Now, half an ounce will put them just 4 grams above the legal limit. This of course means that a cannabis user has to visit an illegal dealer more often and this leaves them more vulnerable to being caught. Even with the 10 year limit on your criminal record for minor drug charges being dropped to 3 years, the new laws still increase the risk of being labelled a criminal. Those caught with less than the new 10 gram threshold are forced into treatment whether they need it or not. This is an old trick used in the US to give anti-cannabis groups a rubbery statistic to further their cause. For example, the latest claim from anti-drug warriors in the US is that cannabis is much more harmful than it used to be. Their evidence - most of those in treatment are now in for cannabis abuse but years ago hardly anyone came in for cannabis issues alone. What they don’t tell us is that 99% of those in treatment for cannabis abuse are involuntary patients. Yep, forced in there by the courts, family interventions and work related issues. Watch this issue arise soon in Australia.

I once asked if dickheads grow on trees in WA. We all know the answer but the trees that produce these dickheads appear to be a certain type ... politician trees. I am noticing that these trees are not just native to WA but are found all over Australia. They must just bloom early in WA.

Police Empowered For West's Drug War
The Australian
By Amanda O'Brien
October 2009

WEST Australian police will have the nation's toughest powers to stop and search people under a plan, unveiled yesterday, which removes the need for them to show any grounds for suspecting an offence.

Premier Colin Barnett said it was intolerable that people caught with weapons or drugs were being let off in court because police could not establish that there were sufficient grounds to search them.

He said legislation would be introduced within weeks to allow anyone to be stopped and searched without reason in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs.

To thunderous applause at yesterday's state Liberal conference, Australia's only Liberal Premier said law and order was a defining issue at the September 2008 election.

"I make no apologies," he said. "We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority."

Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.

He thrilled delegates by promising to also introduce legislation within days to throw out the former Labor government's contentious 2003 drug laws, which allow people to grow two cannabis plants per household without criminal charge.

He said it was a ridiculous law and any cultivation would be an offence in future.

The amount of cannabis triggering prosecution for possession would also be slashed from 30g to 10g, and selling paraphernalia such as bongs and pipes would become illegal. "It is absolutely disgraceful that, under Labor's approach, we have lottery kiosks selling bongs in Western Australia. Not any more."

He said the community had shown at the election it wanted strong laws.

The police commissioner would designate particular areas as "stop and search" zones, and the public would know where they were. Entertainment areas such as Northbridge in Perth and Fremantle were priorities.

"Police will have the right to go up to anyone they wish to and introduce a stop and search power," Mr Barnett said.

"It will not be an invasive search; it will be comparable to the sort of search and screening that takes place for any citizen getting on an aeroplane.

"We will reclaim Northbridge and other areas of entertainment and hospitality for law-abiding young people, for women to go there alone, for families and older citizens."

He said Labor had failed on law and order, and he accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives.

"The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful," he said.

Under the new laws, anyone found with more than 10g of cannabis, enough for 10 to 20 joints, would face a criminal conviction. Anyone with less than 10g would be forced to attend counselling.

In his only concession, the Premier said criminal records for minor drug offences would be expunged after three years, rather than 10, if no further offences were committed.

SA Drug Raids aka Operation Dial - Was it a Success?

2009-10-06T10:08:00.003+11:00

Drug Blitz Devastate Regional Cartels - UPDATED
In a previous article, Drug Blitz Devastate Regional Cartels, I mocked the success of regional drug raids around the Mt. Gambier area. One anonymous reader has kindly pointed out that “Operation Dial” had more success than I had acknowledged.

These are the drugs we have taken off the streets: 9kg of cannabis, 193 cannabis plants, 9g heroin, 11g cocaine, 12g amphetamine and 93 ecstasy tablets.
-Anonymous (Comment on The Australian Heroin Diaries)

A few links were also supplied to some media coverage. It appears that Operation Dial was a state wide operation and not just for the Mt. Gambier region. This waters down the criticism of using an excessive number of officers for the operation as the 250 police were used state wide. Also, the total amount of drugs, stolen goods and cash seized is much more than I reported on. It must appear that Operation Dial was more successful than I suggested. But was it really that successful?

It's not so much about the dollar value, it's the harm these drugs cause.
There is a clear link between drugs and crime.
-Detective Superintendent Scott Duval, officer in charge of the Drug Investigation Branch

There has been quite a few substantial drug busts lately totalling tens of millions of dollars. The Qantas cocaine ring, confiscating 20 million ecstasy tablets in WA, $5 million inner Melbourne drug bust, NT’s largest drug syndicate etc. The amount of drugs picked up by police has totalled several tonnes of coke, speed, heroin, ecstasy and cannabis. The dollar value is in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. So how does this compare to South Australia’s Operation Dial? Forgetting the pot, a grand total of 32 grams of cocaine, speed and heroin and 93 ecstasy pills. The 250 police officers, again starts to feel like overkill for such a small total of confiscated drugs. Some perspective might help. Every day Australians spend about $15 million dollars on illegal and illegally obtained drugs (excluding cannabis which is about $9 million dollars daily). Heroin users buy about 6,000-7000 grams daily and speed is about double that. Cannabis is used about 45 times the rate of heroin use. Although these figures are very, very rough, you get the idea. Removing 32 grams of hard drugs from a market that uses thousands of grams everyday is not going to cause a great deal of stress for the professional drug dealers.

The essential question is ... are these raids actually doing any good? Of course the police will answer yes. So too will the politicians, anti-drug warriors and the media albeit for different reasons. I would argue the opposite and say that when looked at pragmatically, the damage caused by these raids far outweighs the benefits.

What is really achieved by removing a small amount of illicit drugs from the market and what positive outcomes are there to catching the people involved? Those that rely on the dealers for highly addictive drugs like heroin will panic when their source is removed. They will need a fix within 12-24 hours of their last use and the options are not usually good. If they find another dealer, they risk being scammed which leaves them in a worse situation with their drug money gone. This exposes them to committing a possible crime or annoying family and friends once again for money. If they can’t find another heroin dealer, they may have to resort to buying methadone, prescription opiates or even barbiturates which just means another dealer has more business than usual. We can’t forget also what happens during the period between using. Addicts going through harrowing withdrawals, driving from place to place desperately trying to relieve the pain. This is all from one local heroin dealer going out of business for a week or two. No problems for the professional dealers or Mr. Bigs, no reduction in the total amount of drugs bought but more crime and desperation from users and user/dealers.

And then there’s the party drugs like ice, speed and ecstasy. On a Friday or Saturday night, there’s hundreds of young people in the local area preparing to take one of these drugs. They’re heard the dangers from the various anti-drug ads but have never experienced anything like what they’re told. As you would expect, hearing the same old message but never actually experiencing anything close to it, they simply ignore any warnings. They have been told that if they even take speed once they will end up with a face like Wilson Tuckey or be involved in a massive punch up with their parents. “These extreme situations never happen so the warnings about taking GBH are probably bullshit as well ... it can’t be that bad ... can it?”. Anyway, what choice do they have? There’s no speed or ecstasy this weekend because their dealer got caught. “Someone mentioned that there’s some methadone going around and as well as Special K (Ketamine). How much do you take? ... Isn’t methadone like meth?”.

What about cannabis? You were once allowed to grow 2 plants for personal use in SA but the Rann government fixed that up very quickly. Now, you are a criminal if you grow your own. Of course this led to an increase of pot dealers and a sum gain for the prison system. The SA parliament is thick with anti-drug rhetoric and has many moral crusaders. For a once progressive and liberal state, it is now bogged down with ideology and social conservatives that have pulled SA back into the dark ages. I doubt if there is any benefit from raiding small cannabis crops and I’m sure that most police are embarrassed to do so.

Believe or not, most dealers are users who sell drugs to fund their own addiction or dependency including gambling. The Mr. Bigs that we hear so much about are limited in numbers and are heavily outnumbered by smaller dealers. Even going up the chain, the middle men are usually users as well but have good contacts. Often they are more business savvy and are able to get their hands on larger amounts of cash to kick off their venture. Sometimes they are street level dealers as well but the smarter ones will remove themselves from this riskier market. The supply chain is delicate and any bust can cause grief down the line but rarely up the line. Small time user/dealers run a tight schedule where the money made from retail sales go straight to their next pickup. This is where they take what they need for the next day or so and they sell the rest. Then it’s just a cycle with little room for problems.

So how do the public envision these raids? Any drugs confiscated by police is easily replaced from higher up so it’s just more business for them. The real damage done is to the lower end of the market where money is tightest, risks are highest and people are most vulnerable. The police will proudly announce their catch and tell us all how they disrupted the flow of illegal drugs into the community. The media beef it up a bit, the politicians pat themselves on the back and the public cheer on. In reality, the only winners are the Mr. Bigs. The police have wasted their limited budget and resources on catching small fry which has no effect on the overall drug market. The user/dealers and users have their already complicated lives made even more stressful which often results in more crime or dealers cutting the product to recoup losses. The public are falsely led to believe that the drug problem is under control and we are being rid of sleazy drug dealers who hang around the schools and sell our kids dangerous drugs.

The total value of so called hard drugs (non cannabis) confiscated by police is about $11,000 and out of the $120,000 cash that was seized, $116,000 was from one bust on one address. Also, $100,000 worth of stolen goods were recovered from one raid. The police searched 137 homes with 56 suspects being reported for crimes, 66 ‘on the spot’ fines issued and 13 people were arrested. Two firearms were found. Maybe the stolen goods were a significant find but what about the actual drugs? Operation Dial confiscated less than 0.001% of the estimated drug market in SA. This is hardly earth moving stuff but with a bit of the old police marketing magic called “Drugs on the Table”, Operation Dial springs to life.

The “Drugs on the Table” strategy is a sour hangover from the 1970s following in the steps of the US who were keen to push the Nixon’s newly announced, "War on Drugs". It is meant to sound impressive with neat piles of confiscated drugs, money and weapons. Of course, most of busts actually come from low end dealers and users but it still gives the all important impression that the government and police are tough on drugs and there’s zero tolerance for this evil scourge in our society. This message gives the moral conservatives, mild heart palpitations and parents, a sense of security. Nearly 40 years on and not much has changed in police strategies. Surely a policy lasting 40 years must indicate that it is highly successful? Let’s see; drugs are now cheaper, stronger and more available than ever before. The cost to maintain prohibition in Australia is about $5 billion dollars annually. I don’t know the exact figures but let’s look at the US as an example. The DEA budget has risen from $65 million annually in the 1970’s to $19.2 Billion in 2007. The total cost to the US is a whopping $69 billion per year. The public never hear the negative side though and are instead presented with “drugs on the table” and quotes from the police or politicians telling us how happy they are with the results.

South Australia Police will continue with dedicated operations such as Operation Dial to target the detection and seizure of illicit drugs and those associated with drug related offences. The result from Operation Dial sends a very clear message about the way we view the illicit drug trade and our efforts to get these drugs off the streets.
-Detective Superintendent Scott Duval, officer in charge of the Drug Investigation Branch

Was Operation Dial a success? Compared to the havoc, suffering and possible deaths resulting from the raid, it’s a shallow victory at best. Most importantly, it really depends on what you call a success.

Related Articles:
SA Police Raid Hundreds Of Houses For Drugs, Weapons, Cash - Adelaide Advertiser
Drug Seizures And Arrests - SA Police Media Services
Drug Blitz Devastate Regional Cartels - The Australian Heroin Diaries

Jeepers - HeraldSun Says Prohibition has Failed

2009-10-05T12:07:00.002+11:00

What is going on in Murdoch land? First the Adelaide Advertiser publishes a rational article on illicit drugs and now the HeraldSun publishes 2 of them ... on the same day! The last 2 articles might be from the same writer but nevertheless it’s still a shock. The real surprise though is who the author is - Alan Howe. For someone with a few horrible ultra right opinions, Alan Howe seems to be taking a long walk to the opposite side of ideology park. Howe has written before about the criminal justice system not being tough enough and pushes for longer and harsher sentences for those convicted in court. Nearly half of those charged with criminal offences are drug related which makes Howe’s article even more surprising. All that aside, it’s hard to argue that drug prohibition has been successful and to point out it’s failure is an easy task when the facts are known. Why this has eluded so many for so long will become more remarkable as the years pass. But let’s not take any credit away from Alan Howe who must have struggled with his own feelings to write not one but two articles on the matter. And then there's the potential falling out with the boss.

Prohibition Has Failed
Herald Sun
By Alan Howe
October 2009

EVEN among the bulging annals of American improbability, this meeting was right up there.

The two most famous faces on the planet joined in a war on drugs -- the War on Terror of its day.

Since mid-1969, US president Richard Nixon had toyed with the notion of declaring drugs public enemy No.1.

Then, late in 1970, he received a surprise call from the King. Not a phone call. Elvis Presley turned up, uninvited, at the White House asking to see the president.

"I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and communist brainwashing techniques,'' he told the fascinated Nixon.

"And I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good . . . the drug culture, the hippie elements, Black Panthers, etc, do not consider me as their enemy, or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it, sir."

He asked to be made a Federal Agent at Large. Nixon presented him with the badge. Elvis presented Nixon with a World War II-era Colt 45, the pair nicely ticking off America's twin evils.

Nixon kept the meeting secret for a time and months later launched his offensive against the drugs scourge.

What a dream ticket: Presley, the biggest rock star of all time, would be dead in just over six years, having consumed 19,000 doses of sedatives, stimulants and narcotics in his last 30 months; the gin-soaked Nixon, sometimes too drunk to take calls from other world leaders, liked to pop a mood-altering prescription drug called Dilantin, illegally supplied to him in 1000-capsule bottles.

The US war on drugs is estimated to have cost more than $1 trillion -- more than enough money to put Osama bin Laden on the moon. It puts a million Americans in jail each year.

Plenty of Australians are jailed each year, too, for possessing and using illegal drugs.

1In a little-publicised contribution to Kevin Rudd's 2020 summit last year, Brisbane doctor Wendell Rosevear, who has worked in the prison system for decades, called for all drugs to be legalised. He believes the billions of dollars spent in Australia on policing, convicting and jailing addicts and their suppliers should be spent on drug intervention and education programs.

"Drugs are illegal, so we put people in jail to solve the problem and we label people who use drugs as bad -- it doesn't make them feel valuable,'' he said. "If we think we can just put it out of sight, out of mind, we are actually devaluing people and not solving the problem.''

Given that the West's various wars on drugs have failed so miserably, perhaps we should look more closely at Rosevear's proposals.

Certainly, he is not alone. Arriving in Australia today is Norm Stamper, the legendary former chief of the Seattle police, and also a campaigner for legalisation of all drugs.

Stamper is being hosted by the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, which believes we can minimise the damage from the drugs trade -- the violence, property crimes and deadly infectious diseases, not to mention the dizzying and untaxed profits being made by Australia's drug gangs -- if we relax our laws.

"That America proclaimed drugs public enemy No.1 and declared all-out war on them I now see as a colossal mistake,'' Stamper said from Washington state at the weekend as he prepared for his trip.

"The war was not against drugs so much as it was against people,'' he said.
"Particularly people of colour, and young people and poor people.

"We've incarcerated tens of millions of non-violent drug offenders and yet drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency than when we declared war against them.''

I'd call that failure. He does. You'd probably agree.

Stamper is a prominent member of a 13,000-strong international organisation called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that includes current and former police officers, district attorneys, drug enforcement administration officers, homeland security agents, prosecutors, judges and prison wardens who want an end to the prohibition of now-illegal drugs.

They see the lessons of the US Prohibition 90 years ago being forgotten. Back then, alcohol manufacture, sale and transportation were outlawed. It barely affected consumption, but it led to deeply rooted criminal systems being established and crime rates soaring as demand was met, albeit illegally. Like it is with serious drugs today.

STAMPER sees "softer'' drugs, such as marijuana, being decriminalised first, and when lessons are learned, harder drugs following suit.

Having worked in San Diego, he has first-hand experience of the Mexico towns that are now are the front line of the drug cartel wars for control of the lucrative drugs trade.

Ideally, Stamper sees the state growing, manufacturing and controlling the supply of drugs, although LEAP does not have a view on this.

Of course, that's a much stricter regime than we have for the manufacture and sale of alcohol, notwithstanding the alcohol-fuelled violence that so regularly sees injury and death on Melbourne streets.

Cartels Sell Their Nation's Soul
Herald Sun
By Alan Howe
October 2009

THE big boys of the drugs trade make our Underbelly idiots look like they've been on Jenny Craig.

All the numbers are big: Mexico's Attorney-General said his country has spent $US6.5 billion in the past two years fighting the drug gangs.

The cartels will earn about $US15 billion this year; more than 6000 Mexicans will die in cartel warfare in 2009; Mexico has 130,000 standing soldiers, while the two biggest cartels are believed to have 100,000 between them; 24,000 Mexican soldiers are assigned to tackle the drug bosses; 5000 troops work in the town of Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso -- 250 people are murdered there each month.

Last month gunmen broke into a drug rehabilitation centre there, lined up 17 young men and shot them dead. It only just made the news.

The drug cartels openly advertise on street hoardings for government soldiers to defect to them. It's better pay and the kills are more regular.

Mexico is descending into nothing more than a narco-state supplying the demands of Americans who want to get high: in one dreadful weekend in Tijuana nine men were found decapitated; three were policemen, their badges found in their mouths.

Some months back a dozen soldiers were found, also decapitated, their hands tied behind their backs. Heads are rolled on to popular dance floors and tortured bodies turn up in school playgrounds.

It is all too much for some. Former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso now sides with Australia's Wendell Rosevear and Seattle's Norm Stamper.

"The status of addicts must change from that of drug buyers in the illegal market to that of patients cared for in the public health system,'' he wrote two weeks ago.

He wants attention moved from repression of drug users and focused instead on treatment and prevention, the direction in which Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador had already moved.

Danes Consider Dutch Style Cannabis Shops

2009-10-01T11:12:00.004+10:00

I wondered why it took so long for another country to adopt the Dutch model of cannabis “Coffee Shops”. It seems to work quite well except for the worry about drug tourism but if more countries adopted this idea, this wouldn’t be a problem. The most interesting factor of this Danish proposal is that supply is from legal crops whereas the Dutch model doesn’t stipulate where the retail outlets (coffee shops) source their supplies from. I can’t wait to hear the screams of prohibitionists as their heads implode.

Council May Enter Drug Trade
The Copenhagen Post
September 2009

Decriminialising cannabis is eyed as a means to take the trade away from criminal gangs

City supports draft model to offer small quantities of cannabis to residents at current street prices

A City Council majority is backing a plan to legalise the sale of cannabis, which could see two thirds of the market taken away from criminal gangs, reports Politiken newspaper.

The paper cites a memorandum drawn up by council staff, proposing that state-licensed shops sell the drug in small quantities at 50 kroner per gram – similar to the current street price.

The illegal cannabis trade in Copenhagen is estimated to be worth more than a billion kroner annually and if 40 state-run ‘coffee shops’ were set up, they could turn over about 700 million kroner a year.
The council report states the cannabis would be sourced from legal plantations and suggests a three-year trial period. It also states research shows that decriminalising the drug doesn’t lead to more drug abuse.

‘Drug use is not higher in countries that have already decriminalised hash for personal use,’ said the report.

The Social Democrats, Social Liberals, Socialist People’s Party, Red-Green Alliance plus Liberal councillor Lars Dueholm have secured a majority for the model suggested.

However, the legal pot would only be available to city residents. Thor Buch Grønlykke, spokesman for the Social Democrats, explained that this would prevent ‘hash tourism’.

Grønlykke also insisted the licensed stores would be staffed by healthcare professionals.

‘The hash must be sold from places where people are scrutinised closely so the young and vulnerable people can’t buy the drugs,’ he said.

Recent statistics show that almost 50 percent of Danes between the age of 16 and 44 have tried hash and there are around 7000 addicts nationwide.

The council plans to send its finalised proposal to the Justice Ministry before the end of the year as the plan would require a legislative change.

Oops! Adelaide Advertiser Gets It Right

2009-09-30T13:45:00.000+10:00

That would be right, wouldn’t it. Just as I criticise Murdoch’s trashy newspapers for never being rational about drug policy and treating drug use as a moral issue, I find this beauty. I have to say that agreeing with an article in the Adelaide Advertiser about drugs is a unique experience and something to be shared with my grandchildren. Even more surprising are the reader’s comments. I could be wrong but I didn’t read one comment that disagreed with Tory Shepherd’s piece. It may be a few months old now but the article was in the first wave of the current trend to question why morality in the basis of drug policy and the failure of prohibition. How did the Adelaide Advertiser let this one through?

Great stuff, Tory!

Drugs Aren't Evil, So Stop The Moralising
By Tory Shepherd
Adelaide Advertiser
June 2009

People have been getting high for thousands of years, and there's nothing that will stop them.

They seek out different states of mind for different reasons - they want to experiment or escape or feel pleasure or avoid pain.

Poor old Wacko Jacko chose legal drugs - lots of them - and he wasn't alone.

People are endlessly inventive. They will always find a different sort of poison to self-medicate with. If they can't get alcopops, they'll get cheap wine.

If they can't get cheap wine, they'll make moonshine rum.

If they can't make moonshine rum, they'll drink something else.

If people can't get speed on the streets, they'll run a car through a chemist's window and steal cold and flu tablets and make their own.

They'll smoke plants they find in their back yard or help themselves to a parent's medicine cabinet.

Or if they have the time and the money they'll doctor-shop - like Michael Jackson reportedly did - and get myriad bottles of colourful pills made to bring you up or pull you down, and they will concoct their own special way to get out of touch with reality.

They always have.

People have been getting high for as long as they've been making music and it's about time we stopped thinking of drug taking as a dirty disgrace and start treating it as a public health issue.

Opium, cannabis and hallucinogens have been important parts of trade, of history, of religious and spiritual enlightenment.

Some of our best musicians were addicted to drugs or used them for inspirational flights of fancy. Poets, writers and philosophers - from Keats to Shelley - took opium.

Society is full of functioning drug users who look at gritty black-and-white ads telling them that speed will make them dig up the skin on their arms and feel nothing, because that is not them.

Drugs are not some pure evil.

They are chemicals used for various ends by a wide range of people.

Sometimes, those people are in dire mental straits and need all the help they can get to deal with their inner demons. Sometimes, people mess around and try a few things, then move on and have a productive and useful life.

The effect of drug addiction on a person's life can be devastating.

So can binging. Anyone who has had a serious hangover with all its shaking anxiety and pervasive toxicity, knows alcohol is a drug - and a depressive one at that.

Emergency specialists will tell of the toll the serious amphetamines take - the violence, the wild and unwieldy aggression.

But most of them also say alcohol is worse, that it is the bigger evil.

Drugs have a long and rich social history, but they have become a moral battleground.

While we condemn these drugs on the one hand, declare war on them, compete to be the very toughest on drugs that we can be, we allow other drugs to become a normal part of life. We normalise the pills and potions made by those other drug lords, Big Pharma.

Governments have to be seen to be doing something.

So they do something. They act tough on illicit drugs. But it's not proving to be the right thing.

Prohibition of alcohol did not work, and neither did zero tolerance. It's pointless and expensive to try banning drugs.

The only realistic approach is to work out the point at which it starts destroying lives and impacting communities and tackle that.

We need to listen to the people who are studying why people are ruining their own lives with drugs - whether they are drugs bought from a stinking back alley or a man in a white coat.

What is it in people's lives that drive them to self-destruct on alcohol or on Demerol or on ice?

Society has categorised drugs, but the categories they have chosen are moral, not medical, and that needs to change.

Fairfax Media Fights the Good Fight

2009-09-28T08:53:00.005+10:00

I have noticed a few articles recently in the Fairfax Media that would absolutely never appear in the Murdoch trash newspapers. That’s aside from Miranda Devine’s usual assortment of far right rants. These articles are a welcomed relief from the often anti-drug mish-mash that the media tries to pass off as news. It’s not just that I agree with them, it’s because they are accurate and evidence based. Something that News.com know nothing about. At least once a day there is some article in The Daily Telegraph, The HeraldSun, CourierMail etc. that simply ignores the facts about drugs and instead, plays on the public’s fear to attract readers. This is known as drug hysteria.

Prevention, Not Detention, In Drug Fight
By Julie Robothan - Medical Editor
Brisbane Times
September 2009

AUSTRALIA'S emphasis on law enforcement as the principal element of its illicit drug strategy is out of kilter with community attitudes, a survey reveals.

Most people believe the biggest investment should be in education programs to prevent people beginning to use drugs, with the remainder split equally among treatment programs, harm-reduction schemes and law enforcement, according to results from a representative survey of more than 500 adults in June by the drug policy group Anex.

But according to separate analysis from the Melbourne-based Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, about 56 per cent of the money the nation spends on tackling drugs goes to police and courts. Health initiatives such as overdose prevention and needle exchanges receive only 2 per cent of total funding.

More than half think the justice system will never solve drug problems, according to the Anex survey, which comes as the the National Drug Strategy's four-year cycle is about to expire at the end of this year. One-third of people believe those who use illegal drugs should not go to jail, although 45 per cent believe they should be charged with a crime.

Just 39 per cent believe drug use would never affect their family, and three-quarters agree that drug use is connected to other problems in people's lives.

The economic crisis and its effect on personal finances put more people at risk, said John Ryan, chief executive of Anex, which is funded by federal and state governments and philanthropic grants. "People are vulnerable, and that vulnerability often leads to problematic drug use," he said.

National statistics from 2008 show more than 2 million people had used an illicit drug in the previous year, with cannabis top of the list, followed by the misuse of prescription pharmaceuticals, ecstasy and methamphetamine.

Those who used drugs had much higher levels of mental illness, with 20 per cent of those who had taken drugs in the past month reporting high levels of psychological distress, compared with 9 per cent of people who had not.

The results - to be presented this week at the Australian Drugs Conference - showed public concern about the issue was as high as ever. "It is not receding," Mr Ryan said.

About 300 people died from a drug overdose in 2007.

The director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital, Alex Wodak, said there had been a gradual shift in community attitudes to illicit drug use over the years. ''People are increasingly recognising that health and social interventions are a much more effective, less expensive approach,'' Dr Wodak said.

''Law enforcement used to be a brilliant political strategy to get people re-elected, but times are changing and the fear-based approach no longer works.''

Drug Blitz Devastate Regional Cartels

2009-09-22T09:22:00.005+10:00

A massive police blitz in SE South Australia, dubbed 'Operation Dial' has snared some major players from local drug cartels. 250 police officers including Customs officials, Mount Gambier CIB and detectives took part in the operation which has sent shock waves throughout the criminal world in regional South Australia. As organised crime is still realing from the drug blitz, spirits are high for the 250 officers who are celebrating their one arrest. In a targeted effort, Mount Gambier CIB swooped in and arrested a local woman for allegedly selling methyl amphetamine. A great effort by anyone’s standards.

South East operations manager Sergeant Andy Stott said he was pleased with the results
-ABC News

Amoung the other devastating blows to local organised crime was the cleaning up of the well known drug haven, Naracoorte (pop. 4888). In what police are calling, the biggest collection of drug related busts ever seen in Naracoorte, officiers racked up a record 3 fines. But the biggest news that has police celebrating involves the investigation into a major cannabis growing operation in the insidious, drug infested town of Keith (pop. 1203). Local police woke up early and without even having breakfast, stormed a house, catching red handed a local man cultivating 2 cannabis plants.

Sgt Stott has encouraged anyone with information regarding drug related crime, including sale, production or possession of illicit drugs, to contact Bank SA Crimestoppers on 1800333000 or Mount Gambier police on 8735 1020.

Police Reveal Drug Blitz Results
ABC News
September 2009

Police in south-east South Australia have released the results of last week's state-wide anti-drugs campaign 'Operation Dial'.

Officers from Mount Gambier CIB and Customs arrested a female for allegedly taking part in the sale of methyl amphetamines and two reports were made in Naracoorte regarding the sale and possession of prescription drugs.

Three cannabis expiation notices were also issued relating to the possession of cannabis and equipment, while a drug diversion notice was issued to someone relating to amphetamines.

A Keith man was reported for allegedly cultivating two cannabis plants.

More than 250 officers were involved in the state-wide operation.

UK Heroin Trials - Another Win For Prescription Heroin

2009-09-18T14:45:00.005+10:00

A recent scientific trial of heroin assisted treatment (HAT) in the UK has again shown to be highly effective for treating long term addicts. This is just getting boring. Another heroin trial, another great result. How many trials are we going to have before governments accept the benefits of prescribing heroin to long term addicts?

It’s interesting to note (as far as I can tell), not one Australian major media outlet reported on the UK announcement. I understand that the Murdoch trash machine might ignore these results but what about the rest of the media? Why hasn’t Nicola Roxon or Uncle Kev been questioned on this as the rumour mill tells us a government drugs policy is due before Christmas? And just for fun, I thought at least one reporter would track down John Howard to see if his head has imploded yet.

Heroin Supply Clinic 'Cuts Crime'
By Danny Shaw - BBC Home Affairs Correspondent
BBC News

A scheme in which heroin is given to addicts in supervised clinics has led to big reductions in the use of street drugs and crime, the BBC has learned.

More than 100 users took part in the pilot - part funded by the government - in London, Brighton and Darlington.

They either injected heroin or received the drug's substitute methadone.

Those given heroin responded best and an independent panel which monitored the scheme over six months is advising ministers to set up further trials.

About three-quarters of those given heroin were said to have "substantially" reduced their use of street drugs.

Research suggests that between half and two-thirds of all crime in the UK is drug-related.

The Home Office says on its website that about three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habits.

PILOT SCHEME FINDINGS
•Three-quarters reduced use of street heroin
•Offences down from 1,731 in 30 days to 547 in six months
•Spending on drugs down from £300 to £50 a week Figures for group given heroin
•Professor John Strang, who led the project, said the results were "very positive" because the scheme had helped cut crime and avoid "expensive" prison sentences

Professor Strang, who is based at the National Addiction Centre, part of King's Health Partners, said the individuals on the programme were among those who had been the hardest to treat.

"It's as if each of them is an oil tanker heading for disaster and so the purpose of this trial is to see: 'Can you turn them around? Is it possible to avert disaster?'

"And the surprising finding - which is good for the individuals and good for society as well - is that you can," he said.

The Randomised Injecting Opioid Treatment Trial (RIOTT) programme - which is funded by a number of agencies, including the Department of Health - began in 2005.

It involved 127 chronic heroin addicts for whom conventional types of treatment had failed.

Many of the addicts were also using other substances, including crack cocaine.

During the trials, a third of addicts were given the heroin substitute methadone orally and another third injected methadone under supervision.

The remainder, observed by nurses, injected themselves with diamorphine - unadulterated heroin - imported from Switzerland.

National roll-out?

Those on the programme were also given psychological support and help with their housing and social needs.

The results showed that addicts in all three groups cut the amount of heroin they obtained illicitly from street dealers.

According to researchers, more than half of the heroin injecting group were said to be "largely abstinent" and one-in-five did not use street heroin at all.

Before they began the programme, the addicts in the heroin injecting group were spending more than £300 a week on street drugs. After six months, this had reduced to an average of £50 a week.

“ It used to be about chasing the buzz, but when you go on the programme you just want to feel comfortable ”
John, RIOTT participant
There was also a big drop in the number of offences addicts admitted committing to obtain money to feed their habit.

In the previous month before the scheme started, addicts in the heroin injecting group reported carrying out 1,731 crimes.

After six months, this had fallen to 547 offences - a reduction of more than two-thirds.

One of the heroin addicts on the programme, a 34-year-old man called John, had been addicted for eight years when the trials began. He fed his habit by dealing.

"My life was just a shambles... waking up, chasing money, chasing drugs," he said.

But John said the scheme had transformed his life "100 per cent" and he now had a part-time job.

"It used to be about chasing the buzz, but when you go on the programme you just want to feel comfortable," he said.

"I've started reducing my dose gradually, so that maybe in a few months time I'll be able to come off it altogether, drug free totally."

In its drug strategy, published last year, the government said it would "roll out" the prescription of injectible heroin, subject to the findings of the pilot scheme.

The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), which administers drug treatment in England, said the results were "encouraging".

The NTA said an independent expert group, set up to advise the government, had concluded that there was enough "positive evidence of the benefits" of the programme to merit further pilots.

The NTA is understood to be keen to evaluate the financial implications of the scheme. At £15,000 per user per year, supervised heroin injecting is three times more expensive than other treatments.

Judge Judy and the Marijuana Debate

2009-09-15T12:38:00.008+10:00

I should disclose up front that I hate Judge Judy. She’s a first rate twat. Everything I despise about judges is summed up in one annoying package - a bully, self righteous, condescending, narrow minded, cruel and a buckethead. I feel sorry for those who stand before her in court. If she has kids, I pity them too. And her husband must be doing time in hell for sins racked up in a previous life.

In a TV special described as a debate on marijuana legalisation, we got anything but a debate. Jaunty Judge Judy doesn’t even try to be bipartisan and makes her conclusions known before the debate is even half way through. But the real joke is who the Judge picked to represent the affirmative side. A tattooed, convicted drug dealer and a “reverend” of a religious cult who talk to god through smoking marijuana. His name is Reverend Bud Green. Apart from not knowing much about the facts, they hardly get a chance to speak without being rudely interrupted by the jaunty Judge. Her disdain for them is obvious and she even yells at them at one stage, protesting her opposition to legalising drugs. The against legalisation team is what you would expect from a mainstream TV show in the US. Short on facts but big on scary scenarios involving chaos and damaged children. One argument even went as far as claiming there are growing cases of “marijuana babies” being born addicted to pot. Yep, you read that right ... babies born addicted to cannabis. There are some real crackers here and the against team come up with some refreshingly new reasons to fear cannabis.

My advice is to get over the anger quickly then sit back and enjoy some of the funniest TV you will see. Just bear in mind that these people are real and there are tens of millions who will find this video informative. Bizarre as it might be, it still makes for some great comedy entertainment.

The Marijuana Debate On Judge Judy Part 1 Of 2

The Marijuana Debate On Judge Judy Part 2 Of 2

Like Lambs to the Slaughter

2009-09-13T08:45:00.002+10:00

One of the major problems with most drug policies worldwide is the branding of users as criminals. This has led to many incidents where normal, everyday people have been locked up with hardened crims and left to defend for themselves in the vicious prison system. Ironically as Mexico decriminalised small amounts of drugs, one young man was detained for possession of cannabis only a few months shy of the new laws. Whilst in lockup, he was raped.

Youngster Was Detained For Marijuana Possession And Raped At Police Station
Momento24
August 2009

A young man was raped in the cells of Boulogne police station. He’d been detained for marijuana possession. The youngster’s lawyer, Jose Vera, announced that his client will file a millionaire suit against the state.

The fact came into light today, a day after the Supreme Court decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use, but it had taken place in February 2007, .

The Court sentenced the rapist to 23 years in prison and ordered further proceedings against the police who didn’t watch over the boy.

“His life was ruined for a joint. It’s one of those cases that should have never happened,” said Vera.

“Many things failed. But above all we must point out the sensless criterion for detaining a boy for a whole weekend for a spliff.”

“Besides, it is also very serious that a college kid like this were locked into the same dungeon with really dangerous prisoners.”

The boy, named David, was arrested for a previous case so he didn’t possess any marijuana when he was nabbed by police.
The patrol officers decided to take him anyway and put him in jail.

The boy was placed in a cell with the prisoners’ leader Ricardo Juarez, alias “El Cabezon”, for two days. As soon as Juarez saw David threatened to impale him with a stick with a knife on the tip. Then he stole his belongings. The rape took place the following night. Juarez’s cell was unlocked and while the guard nodded off the accused sneaked off his cell, took David by the throat and raped him for ten minutes.

The next day David was released. The boy went to a hospital, who testified at trial that the boy had been abused. Then he contacted his attorney to take the case to Court where two years later Juarez was sentenced to 23 years in prison for aggravated sexual abuse and use of weapon. He also requested an appeal against the guard who neglected the victim.

Related Articles:
Collateral Damage
5 Grams of Heroin Sends You to Jail