Wednesday 31 December 2008

Beware! - Drug Dealing NYE Hooligans

It’s new year’s eve and the police are worried. Alerts have been sent out (see below) and the people have been warned. The city is bracing itself for fierce confrontations with police and large scale violence. The potential mayhem has been sparked by that dangerous group known as ... drug dealers!

WARNING!: Do not approach a drug dealer! Ring the police and hide.

For your safety, it is advisable to stay home although a curfew is not being enforced. If you decide to be part of the activities, beware of dangerous drug dealers tempting your children. If approached, look the other way and don’t make eye contact. Drug dealers have the ability to hypnotise you. The police suggest to stay drunk in large packs and you should be safe from the dealers.

Remember, drinks lots of alcohol and keep away from them drugs!

UPDATE: Relax, the police are “looking at Harm Minimisation”. Phew, what a relief. They are not targeting drug users but drug dealers. Luckily when a sniffer dog picks up your stash, they will happily give it back to you. The police have announced they are not looking to charge drug users ... if they are overdosing and give up their dealer, they have nothing to worry about.



Police issue drug warning ahead of NYE
ABC News
Dec 31 2008

Police say they will target drug dealers at tonight's New Year's Eve celebrations. (AAP Image: Tracey Nearmy)

New South Wales police say they will be using sniffer dogs and undercover officers to target drug dealers at New Year's Eve celebrations across Sydney tonight.

The Commander of the NSW Drug Squad, Detective Superintendent Nick Bingham, says police will be at dance parties and other events.

"They go through with police drug dog operations and have undercover police in the crowd - targetting drug dealers not targetting drug users," he said.

"But of course drug users can get caught up in that as well."

He says party-goers should not be afraid to call an ambulance if one of their friends has an overdose.

"The police are looking at harm minimisation for a start."

"We're not looking to charge a person who's taken drugs and become ill from it but we'd certainly like to know where they got the drugs from."


Friday 26 December 2008

GBH, Ecstasy, Overdoses and Raves - Australian Style

Reactions to GBH overdoses at the X-Qlusive dance party in Melbourne.
How many hospitalised people or deaths do we have to have before some politician is brave enough to do something? And I mean something constructive and not just the political gabber of being tough on drugs or increasing penalties. Instead, the reactions so far have been childish and self-serving with knee jerk responses calling for changes that have no chance of success. Declaring war on rave operators is exactly the sort of response that does nothing except give the perception that tough measures are being taken. We must start to ask ourselves if the government strategies are simply the same old thing over and over again and what do they expect will happen differently this time around? Are they so blind to the constant failures that have got us to where we are today or is taking a different more pragmatic approach just political suicide and will never be considered? The only constant is that people will always take drugs. When will the government concede to this fact and we realise the decisions of our so called leaders will determine how many will overdose, suffer or die?


Crackdown on rave parties after dozens overdose on GBH 
-John Ferguson and Alice Coster 
December 2008 

THE Brumby Government has declared war on rogue rave operators after more than 30 people suffered life-threatening drug overdoses at a Festival Hall dance party. 

Rave-party organisers with bad records who allow drugs to flourish at their events will be denied permits under tough new sanctions planned for the industry. Permits will be harder to get for other operators after dozens of party-goers fell seriously ill at the X-clusive rave, which finished early yesterday. 

A bad batch of the killer drug GHB, also known as GBH or Grievous Bodily Harm, was blamed for the emergency. Twelve party-goers were taken to city hospitals in a serious condition, while others were taken to emergency departments by friends. They suffered fits, breathing problems, dehydration and hyperthermia - a heat-related illness that also can kill. 

Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson issued a warning to the dance party industry through the Herald Sun. "If promoters are out there running events that are unsafe, then they are going to find it a lot harder to get a permit in the future," he said. 

"I'm putting them on notice." 

Ambulance officers were overwhelmed as they ferried party-goers to the Royal Melbourne and Alfred hospitals during Saturday night. It took eight paramedics and ambulance staff to restrain one man. Ambulance officers are alarmed the toxic batch of GHB has arrived as the music festival season gets into full swing. 

Next week's Sensation party at Telstra Dome is expected to attract tens of thousands of party-goers. 

Mr Robinson said the number of casualties on Saturday was unacceptable. "I expect, and I think the community expects, that if these events are going to be held, they are done so in an environment that is safe for the people who are attending," he said. 

"I'll be having private discussions with the Director of Liquor Licensing this week about tougher sanctions and stricter permit conditions but this is a warning that they are on notice." 

GHB claimed its first fatality in Victoria in 2005 when nurse Belinda Davey died in a drug dealer's car outside a city dance club. 

Ambulance Victoria operations manager Paul Holman warned it was only a matter of time before another party-goer died. "This is a very dangerous drug," he said. 

"It can absolutely kill you and there are recorded deaths from it. It's called grievous bodily harm and that's what it does to you. 

"The seriousness of some of these people that presented themselves on Saturday night really concerned us and it's only a matter of time before we get a death." 

Director of Drug and Alcohol Research and Education Australia, Paul Dillon, said GHB was a lethal drug. 

"It can kill, and has killed. People are really playing Russian roulette with their lives." 

Dozens of party-goers were taken to hospital after two rave parties at Kryal Castle last year. 

Police Inspector David Blencowe denied suggestions police should have shut down Saturday night's event. Up to 2000 party-goers filled Festival Hall for the drug-fuelled dance party. 

Police face a huge task on New Year's Eve for the Sensation event. "Certainly with an event like that I would imagine there would be significant police resources deployed and there would be a number of proactive steps taken, as well as trying to actually police the event," he said. 

Organisers of Sensation distanced themselves from Saturday night's emergency. "Sensation has asked people not to take drugs and are doing anything police and safety officers have asked," spokeswoman Erin Jameson said. 

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle slammed irresponsible rave-party operators. "You don't give permits to people for these rave parties unless they can show us a great track record in managing large numbers of kids at a rave party," he said.


You may have noticed that some official responses and some of the MSM made disingenuous attempts to beef up the event. For example, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle linked in “kids” to the adult only event. News.com reported one person who had to be held down by 8 ambulance officers without mentioning he was fitting, referred to the event as “the drug-fuelled dance party”, insinuated GBH was still commonly used as an acronym for the scary titled, “Grievous Bodily Harm” instead of being the technical abbreviation for gamma hydroxybutyrate and highlighted a 21-year-old rave partygoer as some sort of expert with his quote, "Nine out of ten people were on something”. Some officials made ridiculous comments like declaring war on “rogue” rave operators and "I'm putting them on notice" referring to the dance party industry. Many of the overdoses from the X-Qlusive dance party could have been avoided with simple pragmatic strategies but in this climate of drug hysteria, these ideas fall on deaf ears. It’s that old problem of “sending the wrong message” being more important than the safety of users. One result is that GBH, which doesn’t have a good reputation in the dance scene compared to the relatively harmless ecstasy, has grown in popularity due to the increasing use of police sniffer dogs who can’t detect GBH. There’s no doubt that street GBH can be a nasty drug. Most GBH sold on the streets is actually GBL which takes longer to act so often users will take a second dose when the effect doesn’t kick in as expected. There is a fine line between safe doses which is made even more dangerous by back yard operations. Like most illicit drugs, GBH when taken in moderation and at the right dose, is relatively harmless. When abused or used in conjunction with other drugs, it can become lethal. 

...in order to metabolise GHB the body utilises the same enzyme responsible for breaking down alcohol – thus when consumed along with alcohol the effects are vastly magnified – and can, in some cases, be fatal. GHB in combination with other sedative drugs is also liable to produce severe and possibly life threatening side-effects. 
-Steve Robinson. Community Development Coordinator - WA Substance Users Association (WASUA)

The increase in the use of GBH is another side effect from prohibition and zero tolerance policies. The incredible lack of understanding by policy makers has repeatedly caused more damage than good over the last 100 years. The influence of hardcore anti-drugs groups has created an environment of fear in their attempt to moralise a social and health issue by insisting that governments take on their ideology of a drug free world. 

Although history repeats itself constantly with one failure after another, the fear of losing public support or being classed as “soft on drugs” undermine all attempts at actually solving the problem. In the process of demonising another relatively harmless drug, ecstasy, more lethal, cheaper and undetectable replacements become popular. As we have seen with party drugs, the focus on ecstasy was replaced by methamphetamine hysteria and now that has given way to GBH so now there are three problems. GBL might become the next problem to replace GBH and the cycle continues. 

If ecstasy use was first dealt with a rational, scientific approach then maybe we might not have had the GBH/GBL overdoses at the X-Qlusive event. Most problems with ecstasy use stem not from the drug itself but from dehydration and alcohol. When there were ingredient problems, it was almost always because of contaminants or the lack of the key ingredient, MDMA. MDMA has very little harms associated with it’s usage but unregulated backyard operations are free to use any ingredients that suit their profit margins or because of the availability of precursor chemicals. In a vain attempt to disrupt the ecstasy market, the police managed to encourage a glut of low quality ecstasy pills and an increase in user problems arose. This led to some groups offering to test ecstasy pills at raves with the intention to inform users exactly what they were taking. This simple but effective idea prompted some potential users to dump their pills in bins provided and allowed problem users to get medical help. This approach did not judge users but allowed them to make informed decisions with the option of treatment. It’s no surprise that the government threatened criminal action against these medical groups and users were again left to guess what was in their pills. Once again, “sending the wrong message” was deemed more important than people’s safety. SA Democrat, Sandra Kanck once suggested pill testing at raves but was heavily criticised by resident SA nutter, Anne Bressington and other self righteous pollies. This attitude towards ecstasy has led to even more condemnation of the drug than previously although it is still medically regarded as much safer than alcohol. 

A recent scientific classification of various drugs ranked ecstasy at 18 out of 20 for harmfulness which lagged significantly behind alcohol at number 5. The list, published in the medical journal, The Lancet rated ecstasy less harmful than drugs like barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol, ketamine, Valium, Xanax, amphetamines, tobacco, cannabis, solvents, LSD and anabolic steroids. 

On a positive note, many readers of the above and related articles had alternative views to the usual array of inhumane and sick comments found on News.com websites (including the HeraldSun, the Daily Telegraph, Adelaide Advertiser, the CourierMail etc.). Nearly half of the comments were cynical of official/government responses and critical of cruel and nasty comments from other readers. Many readers pointed out the inconsistencies with the public perception of alcohol abuse and the acceptance of drunken behaviour. Others questioned the logic of current laws which drive the black market. It is somewhat of a surprise to see so many sensible comments coming from News.com readers who typically feed on sensational, moralising like hungry pigs at a trough. 

I hope more overdose and die because of it. My house and neighbors were robbed by a couple of the druggies, our hearts have since frozen. If those young people want to throw their lives away, so be it and they are the ones facing the consequence.  
Posted by: Joe of Camberwell

There were 4 main points raised by readers that had something useful to say. I have taken some of the best comments and classed them accordingly. As usual though, some readers gave insight into how uneducated they are to the subject they have such strong opinions about. It seems that propaganda about drugs is still as powerful as ever and much of the public eat it up so willingly. In fact, most negative comments were based on myths and misconceptions so I have included some of these comments under the topic below called Myths. 

1 - Limiting choices 
Unfortunately this is yet another example of the "success" of Police technology - while Police can detect ecstacy, cannibis and methamphetamines with their random drug-driver tests, sniffer dogs etc, they cannot detect GHB. If one of those ravers was determined to take something, and knew there would be a possible big Police presence around town with booze/drug buses, what do you think that raver would choose to take? It's an unfortunate outcome, but until the Police can find a way to detect this GHB scourge of a drug, there cannot be an surprises when people choose to take and consequently overdose on a cheap nasty alternative. 
Posted by: Mike of Melbourne 
Anyone taking GHB in a recreational setting is deep enough into the 'scene' to know that it's extremely dangerous in high doses (you can go from having a ball to being dead in a few drops). I would put money on people taking what they thought was a standard amount only to find out it is from a particularly strong/uncut batch, but that's what you get when you buy stuff of black markets. 
Posted by: Steve of Sydney
2 - Street Quality vs. Pharmaceutical Quality 
Maybe if we legalised drugged so that they could be made in a quality assured fashion, given in safe doses and managed in an appropriate fashion like alcohol this wouldn't happen. The taboo and stigma surrounding recreational drugs in modern society, when we claim to have progressed so much, is ridiculous. Most religions and cultural changes came fromt he shamanic and trance like states induced by natural drugs that were used by the clerics, tribal rituals and priests. Drugs that alter your mind set have played a much bigger rold in the way we as humans have developed than they are given credit for. I'd much rather my kid go out for a night knowing it is ok if they get in trouble to call the ambulance or their parents for help than dying in a drug induced haze in a dodegy lane or venue. Stop blaming the people and the drugs, and start working on the problem from a holistic point, in that it is now a big party of the party cultures in Australia and we need to work with people to prevent these things happening rather than casting blame and causing dangerous illicit home made batches to be sold and to kill. What if a bad batch of beer went out and made 40 people sick? would that be a waste of tax $$$ money to get them to hospital? should they go tor prison for selling or drinking it? should beer then be benned? It's just as much a recreational drug as dope, LSD, GHB or xtc! Posted by: Tom Jerry It is rediculous to think that there is a "cure" for the drug problem. Look at the statistics people, there are more people using party drugs than ever before. Problem is, there seem to be more "bad batches" now than ever before. Why? because drug supply is completely unregulated. We will continue to hear of these horror stories, and I hate to say, deaths due to "bad batches". Get your head out of the sand!!! legalise ecstacy and stop risking our kids lives with who knows what! 
Posted by: John 

Society has always wanted to get wasted. the effects of alcohol, cannabis, opium, etc. have been known for thousands of years and people have got high from them ever since. The USA proved that prohibition is a spectacular failure and detrimental to society at large, not just the drinkers, and the same applies to every other drug. if they were all made by pharmacutical companies and obtainable only with a perscription from your GP to treat "addiction" or what ever than overdoses would be a thing of the past. getting chemically pure drugs that have been issued based on your age, weight, size, etc. will give people the high they desire under much safer conditions. doctors, pharacutical companies and the government would all get paid then instead of drug dealers and the end user will be much safer because of it... 
Posted by: lee of maitland
3 - Demand 
Interesting analysis Joey. However, you should also be aware that the type of drugs you are referring to have and inelastic supply which basically means that as the price goes up, demand will not drop off too dramatically ie, there will always be a high demand regardless of the price. Same goes with alcohol, tobacco, petrol etc, etc. If it was as simply as you suggest (ie have much harsher penalties), then why do you suppose that people are sitting in prison on death row in some countries, even though the penalty for drug offences could not be any harsher. At the extreme, excessive drug taking should be seen as a health issue, rather than a criminal one. But anyway, the whole 'war on drugs' is much more complicated and sinister than you'd imagine but good luck discusssing that here even if there is a mountain of documented evidence which supports the shocking claims. 
Posted by: War of knowledge 

Notice how most of the damage done here is from the drug comeing from the black market? The exact same thing happened in America when they banned alcohol. Bootleggers would pass off metho as regular alcohol, and many people got sick from it. 
Posted by: Jak of Caboolture 

I agree with Jeremy. If you want to limit the chances of death and the pressure on hospitals then legalise drugs so they are regulated and you can charge tax on them - we will have a LOT more tax funds then. You will NEVER stop the world from taking drugs. 

Posted by: Elly of Another Party 
9/10 people were not on drugs this is a massive exageration. Out of the group of people who do partake in recreational drug use the vast majority take one or two "ecstacy" pills and cause no harm to anyone, all those people on their high horses should realise that it is them contributing to the problem by making these people feel like criminals which causes them to take greater risks when consuming them. It is only a small few who use substances such as GHB and I bet alot of them dont understand the risks. Education is required and for this to happen people need to feel its something they can openely discuss with medical proffesionals and even police. Proabition didn't work in the past and it wont work now. I would much rather be around a group of "criminals" who take a couple of pills and go for a good night than a group of violent, drunken idiots that seem to be accepted as part of our society. 
Posted by: Dean Cook

4 - Hypocrisy 
Alcohol is responsible for more assaults, violence, and crime in general than any other drug..... and hence costs the taxpayer more as well.... legalise drugs and let the gov' regulate it.... u cannot win this war, so how about we make sure they are all good batches and tax the hell out of it too....... and btw i was a drug user and held a steady job for 15 years - like a lot of people i know i grew out of it, and because i wasnt ever caught and treated like a low life criminal scum, i'm still working, and ive paid a lot of tax, so nah!!! oh and i love my rum now, so i dont really care, just dont make booze illegal.... 
Posted by: waz 
Heh. Listen to all you people up on your high horse. Whinging about valuable tax $ being wasted on these youths. How many of you are overweight?,how many of you drink to excess? then get behind the wheel? (even just a "little" bit over) How many of you smoke? These are also self-inflicted. What kind of strain will you put on the hospitable system. Perhaps we should have just denied them emergency attention and let them die. It's not like tax $ are being spent on some sailor who was on a self-inflicted trip. Hmm? Sure, drugs are illegal, and so they should be. But that's not going to stop people from taking them. The problem remains. AS does your bad behaviour. Hypocrites. 

Posted by: bill 
Either using drugs to alter you mind is alright, or it is not. The choice of which drugs, alcahol, cannibis, MDMA, GHB is a secondary issue. In the end of the day anyone who has ever got drunk is a drug user. They are drinking ethanol (yep, the same stuff that goes into cars as fuel) to change their perception of reality. GHB (oftern GBL in Aus) is a cleaning solvent. Explain to me how drinking car fuel is somehow morally superiour to drinking cleaning sovent? 
Posted by: Doug of Sydney 

Drugs aren't the problem, the people using them are. Same goes for alcohol and smoking. Educate the people and let them decide for themselves instead of making the decisions for them. Maybe everyone should look at the statistics of alcohol related, ciggarette related and fatty food related deaths as compared to illicit drug related deaths. Insanely 1 sided. 
Posted by: Drugs for you !!! of You backyard 

What a surprise. On one article we have many commenters praising a television star for getting "very hammered" in public, yet in another article we have a bunch of sparse anti-drug comments, despite the fact GHB was the only drug mentioned. Morever, GHB has a similar function to alcohol, that is, it is a depressant and intoxicant. Why should we shun one group of people for practically taking a similar action (to get intoxicated, "drunk") whilst praise another for doing the VERY same thing? Illegality aside, this is just moronic. 
Posted by: Charles Buddington

5 - Myths 
I read an interesting report on the cost of policing drugs in NSW which made me very angry - this money could have been spent policing real crime i.e. assaults, thefts and murder. What makes me even angrier is seeing the strong link between the incidence of assaults and the use of drugs - why do we tolerate these drugs in our society when there is such a strong and undeniable link to violence!!! This cost doesn't even begin to take into account the real cost these fools impose on our paramedics and hospitals. I agree about rapid and large scale enorcement - immediate incarceration for those appearing in public under the influence of drugs - like that fool from television. Take it off the streets, it is not acceptable. 
Posted by: Disgusted of Brisbane 

In stead of blaming the Police why don't you people cast the blame directly where it belongs, on the drug trafficers, pushers and users, and the permissiveness of society and parents nowadays, and the declining values and morals. The youth that engage in the practice of dealing in or takings drugs are a scourge to communities, forever looking for new ways to gratify themselves to get their kicks out of life. Drug taking goes hand in hand with the elevation of crime, to feed their habit. To Ross Morris of Torwood, and the other condoners of narcotics usage Hello!!! drug users ARE criminals, unless you are completely naive, drugs are ILLEGAL. 

Posted by: Aussie Kate of Oregon USA 
i agree with 'joey of melbourne' (comment 17) - we need to start cutting the demand because the current system aint working. If Rudd needs some capital works projects to sink some money into, then i have the perfect solution - BUILD MORE JAILS - and throw these loser drug takers in the slammer for possession or being under the influence Posted by: Glen of Gold Coast Interesting to here Police Inspector Blencowe put this issue in the too hard basket. Drugs are illegal, a venue with thousands of drug affected people in it is in breach of its conditions and his response is it is not in the best interest of drug addicts to close the party. Amazing Inspector! So if I get a couple of thousand people together for a vandalism spree or a shoplifting session will that be ok too..???? Enforce the law, thats your job. Shut down the venues and stop providing a market place for drug dealers. For all you idiots that think drugs are safe if you can't see the correlation between massive increases in crime and drug use perhaps you should clean yourself up for a change and have a look around you. 
Posted by: brendan of melbourne 

[...] From my experience, many of those that do take drugs were the ones that always had problems with discipline in high school. If they use drugs now, then their parents did a crap job, simple. 
Posted by: Interesting of Melbourne 

I'd like to say to those people spending huge amounts of money each year on drugs, why don't you have a think about those people suffering in the world who can't afford food, medication or a place to sleep. Compare that to the chemicals, physical and mental harm and burden on society drugs create and see which on is more deserving.... 
Posted by: Maree from Brisbane 

The problem with the drug epedemic is in the basics of markets. The authorities attack supply, with a lack of effort given to the demand side of the equation. Basic economies tell us markets are driven by demand v supply. But, governments through police attempt to target supply, which simply put means demand (and price, a further detrimental effect on society) to go up. Basic free markets tell us the way to cut supply is to cut demand - that is, the drug user. All the emphasis on the suppliers (dealers) is a waste of time without ever more effort placed on demand. If you put a mandatory jail sentance of 1 year or more on any person found under the influence of an illicit drug, demand will drop like a lead balloon. Then what happens? Supply decreases as the margins on the product deminish, to a point whereby it is no longer economical to produce/supply the stuff. You attack supply through demand, not demand through supply. Look up a basic supply v demand graph. In short, the authorities have it back to front, and wonder why they are going nowhere with it. Mandatory jail sentances for this idiots who OD - that will deter a potential user 100x more than a slap on the wrist. 
Posted by: joey of Melbourne 

What a waste of time and good use of a public service that is struggling to keep afloat .The ambulance service - should have been available for accidents - that are not related to drug choices being made by mindless kids. They are risking their own lives - and it is their own choice. By having ambulances attend they also risk the lives of responsible people who need the services of the ambulance - when and where required. Make the rave party organisers accountable for such medical attention without having to rely on the public service. You play with death - and you deserve to be killed.. Mindless - selfish - twits 
Posted by: kon of Melbourne


Wednesday 24 December 2008

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Just a quick post to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Thanks for all your support and comments throughout the year.
And now the bad news...

Saturday 20 December 2008

Grass Laced Burger Brings Cop to Tears

Cop Upset Over Pot-laced Burger King Burgers Oh My Gov In 2006, two Burger King employees served pot-laced burgers to two New Mexico police officers. The officer, furious about the incident, became outraged two weeks ago when the two men who served the burgers were sentenced to probation with no jail time. Henry Gabaldón and his partner ate the marijuana burgers while on duty. Both officers reported getting high and complained they could have hurt themselves or someone else that night. Officer Gablaldon voiced his contempt towards District Judge John Pope's ruling, referring to the long-bearded Judge as Dumbledore from the Harry Potter series. "The message was it's OK to hurt an officer," Gabaldón said. "There was a lot of marijuana on the hamburgers."

Tuesday 16 December 2008

Cannabis is a Hard Drug Too! - More DFA Deceit

Here is just another in a long line of farcical positions held by Drug Free Australia (DFA). Their arguments are thin, their science is junk and their evidence is cherry picked from millions of pages of research. DFA are notorious for producing misinformation and twisting facts. This article is a another example.

CANNABIS is a Hard Drug Too! 
Spring 2008 

Why is cannabis still separated out from the so-called ‘hard drugs’ in Australian statistical data, given that we now have strong evidence of its devastating harms?

In countries such as Sweden, which has the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD, cannabis has NEVER been considered ‘soft’. In the UK it has just been re-classified up to a Class B drug – sending a strong message to their community that this drug is definitely NOT soft!

However, the situation may be about to change in Australia. The establishment of the innovative new cannabis research centre (NCPIC) is certainly a step in the right direction. Drug Free Australia welcomed the excellent address given by the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, when she opened the Centre earlier this year.

She, along with Professor Alan Budney, a specialist in the field, both emphasised the complexities and harms of cannabis. We were further heartened by meetings with two Federal Ministerial Advisers, both of whom assured us a preventative approach to illicit drug policy is being taken seriously by Labor.

The most recent, compelling evidence cannot be disregarded. For instance, the Australian Medical Association has issued warnings on the health risks associated with smoking marijuana. Risks of cannabis use include memory loss, psychosis, impaired driving, hallucinations, asthma, and even lung cancer. Moreover, warns the AMA, one third to one half of detained patients admitted to psychiatric units in Australia are there because marijuana use has precipitated their condition. A new scientific study conducted in New Zealand indicates that long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults. The study recognised that cannabis smoke has been shown to have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco.

Many national and international studies have found that drivers intoxicated with cannabis, pose a high risk of road accidents. For example a 10 year Victorian study found a 7 times greater risk of a fatal accident. Other studies clearly show that cannabis impairs vehicle control, including the ability to stay in one lane, as well as slowing reaction time. (ANCD Report, Dec 2004).

Highly respected medical practitioners in Australia and overseas have confirmed that cannabis use is linked to psychosis. Dr Brian Boettcher, Consulting Psychiatrist in the UK reports that ‘Cannabis is capable of precipitating psychosis, going on to the chronic cases in people who have had no family and personal history of psychiatric illness. There have been suggestions that such people may be the ones who have started cannabis in their teens’.

So far as cannabis use and birth defects is concerned, a Commonwealth Department of Health publication to medical practitioners warns of foetal brain development, relative prematurity, smaller length and head circumference, malformations, higher rate of miscarriage and perinatal death. A US study found a 10 times greater risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants of marijuana- using mothers. Other effects in the new born are lethargy, slow to gain weight, increased startle reflexes, tremors and possible long- term developmental and behavioural effects. All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.

I have watched almost daily as Jo Baxter and Gary Christian contribute their special brand of drug propaganda to the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) email forums, DrugTalk and Update. I have also recently watched many members unsubscribe as the content quality is reduced by these people. 

Maybe it’s the posts from Jo Baxter using comments from the religious, anti-drug zealots, Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.(DACA) as some sort of authority or Gary Christian bombarding every topic with multiple emails and his never ending focus shifts when he hits a wall of expertise. 

Just today on the radio, I heard Jo Baxter suddenly switch topics from prescription heroin to openly legalising heroin in an attempt to mislead the listeners. She was defending her position on a possible heroin trial in Australia and when asked to respond to Dr. Alex Wodak’s suggestion for such a trial said that legalising heroin would be a mistake. Instead of responding to why prescription heroin wouldn’t work for long term addicts, she simply said legalising heroin sends the wrong message. 

This is standard stuff for DFA to change the focus of the debate with the intention to misrepresent what their opponents are really talking about. In their tiny little world there is no middle ground. Prescription heroin equals free for all drug legalisation, Harm Minimisation equals encouraging people to use drugs, decriminalisation equals legalisation, human rights for addicts equals moral decay. 

To be fair, I need to clarify my position first. I detest DFA and consider them probably the most dangerous organisation in Australia. Their polices are crude and harsh, cruel and non compassionate, unscientific and unrealistic, based on proven failures and unsuccessful strategies, full of religious rhetoric and fundamentalism, are founded on misapprehension and mythos, sly and disingenuous and basically unworkable. DFA tactics include misinformation and propaganda, arrogance and bullying, political manoeuvring and opportunity, exaggeration and guesswork, lies and deceit and especially misleading the public and government. 

Most of the DFA board/fellows are affiliated with religious groups. These include the Salvation Army and the Catholic Church and also radical evangelists like The Festival of Light, Seventh Day Adventists, Australian Family Association and even Scientology. 

Many have been part of abstinence only programs that reject Harm Minimisation like Tough Love, Drug Stop, Parents for Drug Free Youth. They have affiliation with shady groups like Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Wilderness Therapy, Drug Free America Foundation and Knights of the Southern Cross. 

The patron is a TV evangelist who performs magic tricks on stage like curing the sick. She claims god works through her to heal the crippled or cancer sufferers. I have decided to dissect their article and seek out the actual facts. Not surprisingly it wasn’t hard. The content of the article is in red

CANNABIS is a Hard Drug Too! Why is cannabis still separated out from the so-called ‘hard drugs’ in Australian statistical data, given that we now have strong evidence of its devastating harms?

Because it’s not a hard drug. Don’t take my word for it, look to the world trend that is decriminalising cannabis at a rapid rate. 

The main reason given for decriminalisation is the separation of hard drugs from soft drugs. You are probably now asking yourself, isn’t this what the whole article is about? And you are dead right, which makes DFA dead wrong. The many countries who have or are considering classing cannabis as a soft drug have obviously researched the issue rigourously so why are DFA taking the opposite view? This is exactly my point and one of the clearest examples of why DFA has little or no credibility. Cannabis has never killed anyone, no-one has ever overdosed from it and it doesn’t cause devastating harm as DFA claims. This doesn’t mean it’s harmless but cannabis is many times safer than legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. In moderation, there’s debate whether it’s even harmful at all but like any drug, excessive use may cause problems. 

In countries such as Sweden, which has the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD, cannabis has NEVER been considered ‘soft’. In the UK it has just been re-classified up to a Class B drug – sending a strong message to their community that this drug is definitely NOT soft!
Sweden is often used as the success story of a Zero Tolerance drug policy but there is a good reason for this. Other countries with Zero Tolerance policies like the US show that the policy has no effect whatsoever on rates of drug use. 

The US for example has the highest rate of drug use on the planet although it has similar strategies like Sweden including the classing of cannabis as a hard drug. Sweden is selectively singled out because it has always had a relatively low rate of drug use including alcohol. The Swedes are just not regular users of drugs in comparison to most countries. The statement from DFA that cannabis has been re-classified to a class B drug in the UK only claims it’s sending a message that cannabis is not a soft drug. This is not evidence that cannabis is a hard drug at all but merely political posturing. The UK government decided to raise the classification of cannabis against all recommendations from experts, the police, their own party and even a special enquiry commissioned by themselves. The enquiry report from a few years prior had suggested to lower the classification to the lowest class of C, which they did and cannabis use then dropped as a result. Move forward a few years to 2008 and the government has a new unpopular leader. In a politically motivated stunt, the lower use rates were somehow completely overlooked and cannabis was again raised to a class B drug. So much for evidence based policies when your popularity is at stake.

However, the situation may be about to change in Australia. The establishment of the innovative new cannabis research centre (NCPIC) is certainly a step in the right direction. Drug Free Australia welcomed the excellent address given by the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, when she opened the Centre earlier this year. She, along with Professor Alan Budney, a specialist in the field, both emphasised the complexities and harms of cannabis. We were further heartened by meetings with two Federal Ministerial Advisers, both of whom assured us a preventative approach to illicit drug policy is being taken seriously by Labor.

The National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) is being bandied about a lot by anti-drug groups. They are also receiving much criticism for being another propaganda machine. Michael Gormly, editor of Kings Cross Times gives an example in his article titled, NCPIC spouts more junk science

Funnily, Jan Copeland, the head of NCPIC recently slipped up and admitted publicly that most cannabis smokers DO NOT have problems. I wonder who the two Federal Ministerial Advisers were that met with DFA? Apparently DFA were not important enough to be welcomed by Nicola Roxon (Federal Minister for Health and Ageing), Jenny Macklin (the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) or Jan McLucas (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing). 

I did a search for DFA on the website for Health and Ageing and only found one reference to them in a one line comment regarding amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). All other instances of DFA were for Direct Fluorescence Assay or diseases like Syphilis. So much for being noticed by the government. 

DFA do a good job of telling us they are a peak body NGO and often suggest they are part of the Australia’s strategy on illicit drugs. They make a lot of fuss about their influence on the government including their demand that Australia’s political parties come clean on their support of being “tough on drugs”. They were mostly ignored with their demand except by the Libs who coincidentally approved funding for DFA when in government. For a “Peak Body”, the have surprisingly little support from professionals. 

Looking through the websites of official organisations that deal with illicit drugs, I am yet to find support for DFA. The only links to DFA seem to be from similar groups who are also ignored by the professionals. 

Their biggest claim to fame and the source for much of their delusion is being prominent contributors to the The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. This report was the result of the most loaded enquiry ever held in Australia and although it’s been written off by most experts worldwide and completely ignored by the current government, DFA still promote it as the answer to our drug problem. Apart from like minded groups, they are seen for what they are - a bunch of radical religious weirdoes who care not for addicts but their own personal ideology. 

The most recent, compelling evidence cannot be disregarded. For instance, the Australian Medical Association has issued warnings on the health risks associated with smoking marijuana. 
Risks of cannabis use include memory loss, psychosis, impaired driving, hallucinations, asthma, and even lung cancer. Moreover, warns the AMA, one third to one half of detained patients admitted to psychiatric units in Australia are there because marijuana use has precipitated their condition. 
A new scientific study conducted in New Zealand indicates that long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults. The study recognised that cannabis smoke has been shown to have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco.

The evidence might appear compelling but it is not fact. Only a tiny percentage ever have problems with cannabis and this is mostly confined to heavy users. Any sensible person would agree that abusing any drug increases the risks of harm. 

Most anti-drug campaigns including tobacco, focus on the extreme examples of what may occur if used excessively over many years. Nearly all illicit drugs have very little effect on the user unless abused. Heroin for example is basically non toxic and has almost no physical effects. The same is for cannabis. 

You may notice that half the list of possible harms are easily avoidable through common sense but they always seem to be included as additional scare tactics. For example, impaired driving is a no brainer. If drinkers can avoid driving when intoxicated why wouldn’t cannabis users do the same? Someone under the effects of cannabis is much more likely not to drive than alcohol affected persons but this is never mentioned. 

What about asthma or lung cancer? Do asthma sufferers smoke cigarettes? Do cigarette smokers continue if they start to get asthma? The difference with cannabis is that it can consumed by other methods apart from smoking. It seems that cannabis users again have been targeted as lacking common sense. Users with respiratory problems can include cannabis in food or use the many vaporisers available on the market. Cannabis may have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco but the process of intake is completely different. Cigarette smokers inhale all day whilst cannabis users only take what they need to. Smoking 20 cigarettes a day with 10-20 puffs is vastly different to 1-4 puffs per day or week. Research on inhaling burnt plant matter shows that the body can natural accommodate a certain amount of fumes without any effect. It varies from person to person but if say 10% is harmless then 40 puffs on a cigarette being 10% of a daily total of 400 is significantly more than say 4 puffs for cannabis. It again comes down to use versus abuse. That being said, anyone who has 40 puffs of cannabis a day, every day probably needs help. 

On a side issue, since prohibition makes cannabis expensive, users often mix in tobacco to maximise their stash or control the intake potency. There is some suggestions now that a lot of craving to take cannabis is the really the desire for nicotine, not cannabis. Cannabis is classed as a very mildly dependant drug like caffeine but tobacco is classed as extremely addictive like heroin. 

Many national and international studies have found that drivers intoxicated with cannabis, pose a high risk of road accidents. For example a 10 year Victorian study found a 7 times greater risk of a fatal accident. Other studies clearly show that cannabis impairs vehicle control, including the ability to stay in one lane, as well as slowing reaction time. (ANCD Report, Dec 2004).

Ah, again the assumption that all cannabis users are completely irresponsible. No one should drive with any mind altering substance including alcohol or prescription drugs. Why would cannabis smokers be different from alcohol drinkers? You may start to see the tactics used by DFA a little clearer now.

Highly respected medical practitioners in Australia and overseas have confirmed that cannabis use is linked to psychosis. Dr Brian Boettcher, Consulting Psychiatrist in the UK reports that ‘Cannabis is capable of precipitating psychosis, going on to the chronic cases in people who have had no family and personal history of psychiatric illness. There have been suggestions that such people may be the ones who have started cannabis in their teens’.

The main medical argument by groups like DFA is the claim that it leads to psychosis. What is known is that people with a history of metal illness in their family may be prone to similar symptoms. The big question is whether those who smoke cannabis without a generic link to metal health have a greater chance of suffering psychosis than those who do not use cannabis. Again moderation is the key. Heavy use of cannabis may cause psychotic conditions but does moderate use? This has never been conclusive. DFA cite a quote from a report by Dr Brian Boettcher. What they leave out from his report is:

The drug induced psychosis seen when Cannabis is the main substance being abused is distinct phenomenologically from other psychosis. It is unusual for such a psychosis to occur without other drugs being involved to some extent and so it is difficult to tease out the differences between the effects of Cannabis and other drugs. -Dr Brian Boettcher
Then a few years later, Reuters wrote an article about a report from Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark:
They found that individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis" Based on the findings, the researcher says, "cannabis-induced psychosis is probably not a valid diagnosis. It should be considered schizophrenia." 

This brings up a very important point.
It's "very common" for people to have psychotic symptoms after using marijuana, such as hearing voices, feeling paranoid, or believing one has some type of special ability, Arendt said. But these symptoms typically last only an hour or two. "It's a very important distinction, this 48 hours criterion," he said. 

So it still seems there is still no conclusive link to psychosis from moderate cannabis use. The psychotic symptoms are just that, symptoms or psychotic conditions not psychosis itself. Like a drinker who becomes violent or depressed when drinking, a cannabis users who suffers adverse effects should probably abstain. DFA again assumes cannabis users are incapable of controlling their use. Any normal person who has negative effects like psychotic type symptoms from taking something will most probably avoid it. 

The very reason I don’t smoke cannabis is because it has an adverse effect on me. I get paranoid and stay extra quiet until the effect wears off. I know many people like this who simply don’t take alcohol or other drugs that have unpleasant effects. So why do DFA suggest cannabis users will continue down a self destructive path as opposed to most drinkers? 

Many of the reports that suggest cannabis does cause psychosis are statistical witch hunts that process millions of possibilities until they find a result they are looking for. This is known as junk science and is well known throughout the research world. The often used “gateway theory” where cannabis leads to harder drug use is an example of this. Because X once used Y and now has psychosis then X must be a precursor for psychosis. Using their logic, alcohol and tobacco have more chance of being a precursor for psychosis than cannabis. In other words, certain groups seek out particular results to add credibility to their often tenuous agenda. DFA is one of these groups.

Norman Swan: And how often, you talk about bias and statistical bias in the reporting, to what extent do you see the statistics manipulated in order to get a positive result? 
Dr. John Ioannidis: Well one does not necessarily need any manipulation. Let's say that someone does the perfect study, the perfect epidemiological study, the perfect exploratory analysis hunting for associations. However there are ten other teams that do equally perfect studies and only one is lucky just because of chance to find some particular association with some exposure or intervention of interest. Now if we had the benefit of reporting the results of all ten, or eleven investigations with equal weight and equally soon and in equal detail then we would not be misled, we would see that here are ten studies that find nothing, and there's one that's found something but if you pull them together you see that there's absolutely no effect, nothing to be seen, so it's just statistical rules that say if you run too many studies and too many analyses a few of them will show something that is just chance. However in the current publication environment researchers are really urged to report that they have made discoveries, competition is very fierce, they have to say that we have found something and they probably don't have much time or even willingness to report and comment on what 'negative results', even though these studies may be just as important and as well conducted. So what we end up seeing many times is just the tip of the significant results that appear due to chance. 

The facts are clear. 
  • Most users of cannabis will NOT become psychotic.
  • Those with a history of mental illness in their family including themselves have a greater chance of psychosis.
  • Some of the negative effects of cannabis abuse appear as symptoms of psychosis but only last for an hour or two.
  • Cannabis use may be damaging to the young brains of teenagers.
There’s a lot of maybes in cannabis research but the fact is most users have no problems whatsoever. The small group who are prone to abuse cannabis or have adverse effects should not use it. It's simple really and I fail to see why DFA do not ever mention this. Instead, DFA are well known to cherry pick their data and write their own biased conclusions. Paul Gallagher from DFA Watch gives an excellent example in the article, Drug Free Australia; telling you what you think.

So far as cannabis use and birth defects is concerned, a Commonwealth Department of Health publication to medical practitioners warns of foetal brain development, relative prematurity, smaller length and head circumference, malformations, higher rate of miscarriage and perinatal death. A US study found a 10 times greater risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants of marijuana- using mothers. 
Other effects in the new born are lethargy, slow to gain weight, increased startle reflexes, tremors and possible long- term developmental and behavioural effects. All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.

No one should take potentially harmful drugs whilst pregnant including alcohol, cannabis or prescription drugs! Again, a no brainer. I keep asking this question ... why do DFA assume cannabis users can’t control themselves? Any normal person would not risk hurting their unborn child and this includes cannabis users. There is a greater chance of a drinker risking the health of their child so why aren’t DFA promoting the more dangerous situation?  

But DFA leave the best to last. In the last paragraph, the last line is the all encompassing attitude and misleading tactics of DFA. Apart from the last line, the last paragraph explains about the possible effects of cannabis on pregnant mothers but is irrelevant if the mother doesn’t use cannabis. There’s lots of grisly descriptions and damning statistics but still has nothing to do with non users or anyone not pregnant. It only mentions medical conditions and statistics on the risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants. But what seems to be the case of a lazy writer, they strangely throw in:

All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.”

LOL. Did they forget a paragraph? Maybe they got confused with their own lies and deceit? The last line does though give an appropriate ending to their poor attempt at providing serious information. It is out of place, out of context, not relevant to the current subject, misleading, sensationalism, incorrect and a lie. 

Saturday 13 December 2008

Journalist Should Be Ashamed

Just as I finished posting about a rare occurrence where the MSM wrote something sensible concerning drug use, I find one of the most pretentious and overdone articles I have ever seen in the Australian media. It’s probably no surprise to you that the article is from the Daily Telegraph and it’s author, Fiona Connolly has exceeded their own dismal standards and produced what seems to be, a Piers Akerman style masterpiece. Akerman and Connolly are work buddies so maybe there’s been some in-house tuition going on. How else could Connolly come up with such crap?


Cokehead Should be Ashamed
The Daily Telegraph
By Fiona Connolly
December 2008

HER heart is thumping. She can feel it pulsing in her throat, a loud wooshing sound ringing in her ears.

It's loud enough it drowns out the noise of the pokies and the dull beats spilling out of The Bourbon. Her toes are sticky. Damn it, there's blood on her foot. She hitches her micro mini and bends over to take a look. But it's no good, she can't see.

She blinks, or are her eyes actually flitting now? She can't tell. The bright lights of the Cross are as blurry as hell.

OK, try to focus on that Macca's sign then, she thinks. But she can't. The wobbling yellow sign makes her laugh out loud, even though she's alone. Even though blood is dripping from her nose.

She's been drinking for 24 hours and is still not drunk. A couple of grams will do that to you, she laughs to herself.

All right, so her nose is stuffed but if she could just scab one more line from someone, just a bit to rub on her gums even, then she'd call it a night.

This could well be the sad story of a low-life Sydney prostitute, an ice addict or speed freak. But it's not.

It is an all too typical picture of Sydney's well-heeled 20, 30 and 40-something professionals, where a weekend cocaine binge is somehow not only acceptable but something of a status symbol in this city today.

Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals, doctors ("they're the worst" apparently) all "racking up" until their nostils can take no more or until the "gear" eventually runs out.

You see, it's perfectly OK because it's cocaine. Real druggos don't use cocaine, they can't afford it. Real druggos are skanky speed and ice users. Coke is glam. It's part of the scene. Rich people, celebrities use it.

The other common attitude is that they're all proud of it.

To offer someone a line of coke is to say they've got a spare $300 to throw away on a gram for the weekend. It's a badge of honour. And you're particularly popular if you're sharing your stash.

It goes some way to explaining why Young Australian of the Year contender Iktimal Hage-Ali made no attempt to apologise for her cocaine use as she testified in the District Court this week where she is suing the NSW Government for unlawful arrest and wrongful imprisonment.

Instead, she was filled with pride over her former coke habit, telling the court she had lied to her dealer and childhood friend Bruce Fahdi so she could get drugs on credit.

"I'm not ashamed of the fact that I have used cocaine. I know I took drugs but I still did a good job." she puffed.

What? Not even a hint of a "naughty me, drugs are bad" when you are talking to a judge - and an entire courtroom full of reporters?

If we didn't already know, I'd be asking what this supposedly intelligent girl was on, that she's so keen to tell the world she was an out-and-proud cokehead. I didn't hear Hage-Ali crow about the coke addicts who lick toilet seats for leftover grains of powder, or the users who suffer brain bleeds or those who have heart attacks and die after one too many lines.

I note too that in her self-assured, independent woman spiel to the court she didn't brag about the men and women rocking back and forth with severe psychosis in the corner of the state's mental institutions.

Nor did she mention the good folk who undertake the drive-by shootings and murder innocent people which allow her - and Sydney's bulging white collar cocaine crew - their illicit supply. Given she would "happily admit" to the District Court to snorting 3g of cocaine a week, I take it Hage-Ali hasn't pondered these things. After all, it's not like its grubby heroin or ice - otherwise known as "poor man's coke". She was speaking of cocaine. The expensive stuff.

This is also presumably the attitude of Assistant Director-General Michael Talbot, Hage-Ali's former boss, who yesterday gave evidence that the Attorney-General's Department wanted her back despite the criminal charges she faced.

"There was no impediment of her returning to work," he told the court.

"I would have had her back in the role that she was partaking in at the time."

In recent weeks I've heard more than a few people talk of having a "white Christmas" this year. They will do so courtesy some of Sydney's high-end clubs which perpetuate this city's rampant cocaine use with custom-made mirrored shelves in their toilet cubicles.

They will "smash" a bag or two a night, while the likes of supermax prisoner Bassam Hamzy and his crew map out a crime spree to satisfy Sydney's never-ending demand for this evil drug.

May I ask Ms Hage-Ali, what's not to be ashamed about that?



Bwhahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha. Ho Ho Ho, hahaha. [sigh] I’m sorry about that but I couldn’t help it. This is just too funny to be true. I have read some classics before but Jesus Q. Christ, this is the best of them by far. If someone should be criticised for allowing drugs to interfere with their life, it’s Fiona Connolly. I don’t see any other explanation except she must be on magic mushrooms or LSD. Maybe it’s a script for some B-grade movie or a plot for a trash novel but what it is not, is an article worthy of being taken seriously. I feel that television and cinema have been mixed up with moral outrage with a good healthy dose of Daily Telegraph mentality.


Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals, doctors ("they're the worst" apparently) all "racking up" until their nostils can take no more or until the "gear" eventually runs out.

You may have noticed that journalists are left off her list. Apparently, Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals and doctors are the worst. Where the hell did she get this from? Maybe she popped her head into Akemans office and asked him considering he is supposedly a journalist and also an ex cokehead. And don’t you love the phrase, “cokehead”? Remember, the Daily Telegraph regularly uses derogatory terms for medical issues that involve drugs e.g. Akerman calls the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC), a shooting gallery, drug addicts are usually referred to as junkies and of course there’s speed freaks, cokeheads, potheads etc. Connolly makes out that Iktimal Hage-Ali is some proud, arrogant socialite who looks down on the lower classes especially those “speed freaks” and “ice addicts”. Using terminology like “out-and-proud cokehead” or “braggging” is taking a bit too much journalistic freedom. Connolly also writes that Iktimal Hage-Ali is selfish because she didn’t alert the court that cocaine can cause problems in Australia. It just shows how far she will go to make her point. It’s like criticising a drink driver for not telling the judge that alcohol abuse causes liver cirrhosis. Yes, way too much journalistic freedom.

Instead, she was filled with pride over her former coke habit [...] I note too that in her self-assured, independent woman spiel to the court she didn't brag about the men and women rocking back and forth with severe psychosis in the corner of the state's mental institutions.

Like all good moralists protesting about drug users, Connolly introduces extreme examples and images from popular culture to make her point. Sometimes it sounds more like a scene from a Superman movie

...supermax prisoner Bassam Hamzy and his crew map out a crime spree to satisfy Sydney's never-ending demand for this evil drug.

Or a scene from some gangster movie set in L.A.

Nor did she mention the good folk who undertake the drive-by shootings and murder innocent people which allow her - and Sydney's bulging white collar cocaine crew - their illicit supply.

Some times it’s from Jackie Collins new novel.

In recent weeks I've heard more than a few people talk of having a "white Christmas" this year. They will do so courtesy some of Sydney's high-end clubs which perpetuate this city's rampant cocaine use with custom-made mirrored shelves in their toilet cubicles.

Yep, it's funny, isn't it. If I didn't know the circumstances, I would assume it's satire. Cocaine, lots of money, drive-by shootouts, unrepentant Muslims, fancy night clubs with snorting mirrors in toilet cubicles, murder, glamorous professionals in mini skirts, wrongful imprisonment, a city in chaos and more. Iktimal Hage-Ali is guilty of using cocaine. She admitted to it which should score a few brownie points but for Connolly, this is her worst crime. It’s not Iktimal Hage-Ali’s job to be a role model or to fit in with Connolly’s criteria of acceptable behaviour. As some readers pointed out, Iktimal Hage-Ali is one of the 90% of drug users who don’t have a problem with their usage except when faced with contrived drug laws. Singling out well-to-do cocaine users as the core reason for street violence, severe psychosis and the downfall of society is disingenuous. In fact, these outcomes are rare in Australia compared to the US where harsher laws apply. It is obvious that Connolly is confused between the street violence in the US, Mexico etc., the world of movies/TV and the reality in Australia. Even the commitment of her previous boss, Assistant Director-General Michael Talbot, that the Attorney-General's Department wanted her back was seen as unacceptable. Was the whole world falling into a spiralling mess with no morals or heaven forbid, lack of family values? Think of the children! I also noticed she left out that Iktimal Hage-Ali was “sending the wrong message”. Hasn’t she read the politicians book of rhetoric? “Sending the wrong message” is clearly marked as vital to all public statements on drug use.

I didn't hear Hage-Ali crow about the coke addicts who lick toilet seats for leftover grains of powder, or the users who suffer brain bleeds or those who have heart attacks and die after one too many lines.

The fact is, most drug use is uninteresting so without moral judgement or dressing it up, it is unlikely to make for compelling reading. A good NEWS.com writer needs to follow the in-house procedures and introduce moral decay or sinister sub plots to make it into the published pages. Fiona Connolly certainly did that.


Some sample comments from The Daily Telegraph readers.
There are some mighty fine comments here. Read on.

The article makes the same mistake that ineffective government anti-drug advertising does. It goes too far in demonising the experience of taking drugs, and in the process reads as fake. Most people who use recreational drugs hold steady jobs, maintain responsibilities, and generally have a great time on the drugs which is why they keep on using them. They may be aware of the longer term issues, but like smokers and drinkers, negotiate these risks with the great feeling they get in the present. The tawdry piece of fiction that intros the piece is just that - fiction - and would represent less than 1% of the experiences of regular drug users. The journalist maintains this piece of fiction is the experience of young professionals in Sydney. Really? Where is the evidence? Who was interviewed? This is not journalism, it is moralising rubbish. 
-Posted by: Fred of Petersham of Sydney [My choice for best comment]

A quick search of Fiona Connelly in google shows some quality journalism for quality publications. You owe your living to drugs my dear, as no straight person would pay you for this drivel. -Posted by: dave Everyone uses coke, you only hear the bad stories of it. Get a life and mind your own business. Smoking and alcohol is legal and a hell of a lot worse. Stop telling people how to live their lives. 
-Posted by: Steve of Sydney 

fiona- Who made you the arbiter of public morality? If someone can use a substance and still function in thier life then who are they harming.. all of the gang violence, drivebys, and other sensationalist pap you mentioned are actually a result of prohibition of drugs, and nothing to do with the substances themselves. 
-Posted by: Johnston of Sydney 

What a sensationalist article. Look out! every where you turn, surrounded by evil drug fiends, ready to murder for their next hit!!!! You should give up writing news and turn to pulp fiction crime thrillers! Take a reality check, if that's a typical picture of your average drug user, and drug use is as rampant as you suggest then why hasn't society collapsed in a drug addled heap? Perhaps its because most people use recreational drugs responsibly, hold down jobs and have normal lives. People like getting intoxicated - on legal drugs or otherwise. It's more normal than you think. If you doubt it go to your local pub and see how many people there are drinking non-alcoholic drinks (probably not many!) 
-Posted by: Paul of Sydney 

The article mentions use of cocaine by "Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals, doctors" But no mention of journalists. Maybe that's for another article, one where you detail how a drunk person looks and then refer back to those journalists who are proud to proclaim their drinking capacity. 
-Posted by: adam of null 

Fiona - no mention of journalists on your list of coke taking scum? 
-Posted by: Mick 

Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals, doctors ... Yeah I'm sure they're into it, but you left out a few other groups that are extremely well represented, though some don't do it as publicly for obvious reasons. Add reporters, real estate agents, police officers, Labor MPs and their staffers to your list and you'd be closer to the mark. 
-Posted by: Julie A of Sydney 

Bankers, lawyers, engineers, IT professionals, doctors ("they're the worst" apparently)....I note your forgot Journailsts! 
-Posted by: Andrew of Canberra 

Plenty of people get off their faces on alcohol and make a disgrace of themselves. This is a much larger social problem than cocaine. Where are the outraged articles about that? This moral distinction between potentially harmful substances because some are legal and others not doesn't work for me. -Posted by: rucksack I'm not ashamed of the fact that I drink water, but I wouldn't say I'm proud of it either. Iktimal Hage-Ali has said she's not ashamed of using cocaine. That means she's not ashamed. And that's all it means. 
-Posted by: Sylvia Else of Forestville 

I blame the touchy feely left wing ALP government who have allowed this behavious to occur. People who are caught with any drugs should be immediately and summarily incarcerated for 30 days hard labour out in the states central west where they can brak rocks, dig holes, etc. No appeals, no phone a friend, nothing. Invite Channel 7, 9 or 10 to film them. Make a reality show out of it. Shame them so that their family and friends know what junkies they are. When they get released, how many of these so called 'professioanls' will still hold their job? Not many I presume. Garbage people like Iktimal Hage-Ali should be washed down the sewer where they belong. 'nuff said!! 
-Posted by: Stefano of Sydney 

Strip her of the award, and lock her up for a couple of nights. There's nothing like tough love! She only won the award in the first place as an appeasement to the left, so that the chardonnay crowd can pat themselves on the back and tell all those who care to hear about the success of immigration and how well they've assimilated 
-Posted by: Chappy of The Rocks 

Go to any nightclub in sydney on the weekend and you will find people like Iktimal Hage-Ali everywhere. Young succesful people just letting their hair down and its back to work as normal on monday. These people are not addicts and most of them grow out of it as they get older. They are probably doing less damage than binge drinking to the point of oblivion and starting fights and damaging property. Yes some people do become addicts but these people probably had problems before they even tried drugs. 
-Posted by: anna bella of sydney 

good on you girl for being proud of your achievements. i wonder if your parents reprimand u everynight for not wearing a burqa, taking drugs and drinking alcohol. repent, if u still want half an ounce of your ex-reputation returned. 
-Posted by: Clayton of Sydney 

You'll find that the people who have a harsh opinion of cocaine like the stories above are mostly the uneducated ones, talking about drivebys and junkies and etc. There are many high profile professionals that recreationally use - not harming anyone. Its the illiterate, niave and uneducated that are always just quick to pass judgement. Drawing parralells between gotham city and sydney i mean come on. 
-Posted by: Simon Westaway of Sydney 

High profile users - not harming anyone. Simon W comment 47 you are the muppet in serious need of an education. Tell that to the thousands that end up on the wrong end of a gun because they're in the way of the drug cartel supplying you with your "recreational hobby". 
-Posted by: Jako of Sydney