Thursday 30 September 2010

Indonesian Cruelty


Indonesian prosecutors in the Scott Rush case have finally gone too far. Their fanatical insistence on sending Scott Rush to his death, is so inhumane, so completely unreasonable and so cruel that I am almost lost for words. 

Barbarism (noun)
-absence of culture and civilisation : the collapse of civilisation and the return to barbarism.
-extreme cruelty or brutality

I have to keep reminding myself that this is Indonesia - the most corrupt, hypocritical, inhumane and sometimes despicable country on this planet. Why would I expect anything else from a country that overlooks home grown terrorists but are willing to murder foreigners for being drug mules. I should accept that Scott Rush and the Bali Nine will receive no justice in Indonesia but like most people with a heartbeat, I find it so damn difficult to stay quiet. The sheer arrogance of the prosecutors and their relentless desire to snuff out Scott’s short life is bordering on barbarism. 

If we held a vote of the Indonesian people, especially Balinese society, and asked is it fair for organised transnational narcotic criminals to be (sentenced to death) we are certain the community will have the opinion that the death penalty is very suitable to be imposed and is just.
--Ida Bagus Argita Chandra: Indonesian Prosecutor

I’m sorry Mr. Chandra but sentencing an Australian to death that would normally invoke a 1-5 year jail term locally, will not attract a lot of tourists. Especially when your country is notorious for luring tourists to buy drugs by the police and then bang them up for a bribe … or face decades in prison or even a possible death sentence. Tourists are nervous enough about possible terrorists attacks let alone being wrongfully arrested for drug offences. I see that some terrorists who commit mass murder are treated better by authorities than naive kids who are coerced into smuggling drugs. How can any rational person compare terrorism/mass murder with being a drug mule?

And then there’s this from another prosecutor:

...drug smuggling was a serious threat to the island’s image as a tourist destination and harsh punishments in drug cases would deter future offences
--Purwanti Murtiasih: Indonesian Prosecutor

Oh, the deterrence myth. If the prosecutors would spend an hour or so doing their research, they would discover that harsh penalties do not deter desperate addicts or petty criminals from the easy money involved in the drug trade. Sentencing people to death for drug offences puts countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia etc. out of line with civilised nations. The treat of being shot by a firing squad simply increases the stakes and the violence associated with the drug trade. It also forces the drug king pins to distance themselves from any punishment by using desperate couriers.

Like most drug policies, it’s the poor, desperate, marginalised and minority groups who end up in prison or facing a death sentence. Rarely do the rich drug lords face the courts or some sort of judicial punishment. The massive profits from the drug trade allow those at the top to distance themselves from most policing with bribes being a key ingredient. When you add in the rampant corruption in Indonesia, the chances of catching these criminals becomes even more remote. Where are the suppliers of the Bali Nine’s heroin haul? Why haven’t we seen the upper management of this drug ring in court? Why are we left with just the pawns who played such a minor role?

The bad smell leftover from the Schapelle Corby fiasco and the exposure by Rob McJannett on the inbuilt judicial corruption raises some concern at the prosecutor’s enthusiasm. What drives them to be so gung-ho in their bid to end Scott’s life? With a delicate Australia-Indonesian relationship and the recent criticism over Australian forces training the controversial Kopassus special unit, you would think Indonesia had more pressing issues to deal with. Putting up flimsy arguments like tourism and minor technicalities about whether a letter had been previously used is bizarre considering it’s someone’s life at stake. 

I feel for Scott’s parents who must be so utterly fed-up with the whole situation. I can only imagine their hate for a bunch of over zealous prosecutors who are pushing for the murder of their son. It certainly gives a new meaning to feeling helpless. What drives some people like the prosecutors to want the death of someone they don’t even know? Where’s the compassion? Where’s the humanity? Not in Indonesia … that’s for sure!


Prosecutors Say Death a Fair Sentence for Bali Nine Member
By Made Arya Kencana
September 2010


Denpasar. Prosecutors said on Monday that Australian Scott Anthony Rush did not deserve leniency after being found guilty of attempting to smuggle 8.2 kilograms of heroin out of Bali in 2005. 

In an appeal hearing, prosecutors dismissed arguments by the Australian Federal Police that Rush played a minor role in the smuggling attempt and did not deserve to be sentenced to death. 

“No matter how small the role of the convict, it supported the success of the syndicate, so the capacity is the same,” said prosecutor Purwanti Murtiasih. 

He added that drug smuggling was a serious threat to the island’s image as a tourist destination and harsh punishments in drug cases would deter future offenses. 

Rush was a member of the so-called Bali Nine caught attempting to smuggle heroin from Bali to Australia in 2005. His was originally sentenced to life in prison, but received the death penalty after appealing to a higher court. 

Mick Keelty, a former Australian Federal Police commissioner, and Mike Phelan, the AFP’s current deputy commissioner, appeared on Rush’s behalf at the Bali court earlier this month. 

Keelty said Rush was not a leader of the plot and did not deserve the death sentence. 

Phelan noted that it was Rush’s first drug offense and he would have faced “less than 10 years” if convicted in Australia, which does not have the death penalty. 

Prosecutors also rejected the argument of Rush’s lawyer that the death penalty had been abolished in many countries. 

Purwanti said that as long as Indonesia still had capital punishment, prosecutors would seek it for major cases. 

“As to the idea that the death sentence should be applied selectively to certain cases, we believe the convict’s violation meets the requirements for the death sentence because he was proven to have smuggled drugs in an organized way that is considered an intercountry crime,” he said. 

The court is scheduled to decide on Oct. 4 whether Rush’s death sentence will be reviewed. 


Related Articles

Tuesday 28 September 2010

The Propaganda Files - The Faces of Meth

The Facts: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) Does Not Work
Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use
--D. Mark Anderson: UW doctoral student in economics.

It is probably one of the most famous anti-drug campaigns in the US. The The Montana Meth Project or as it commonly known, The Faces of Meth was so popular in Montana that several states including Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and Georgia, took it up. It’s success was impressive and it fitted in with the usual scare campaigns that make politicians and parents so happy. The problem was that no one outside the organisation had actually studied it’s so called success. And when someone did, the MMP’s results fell well short of their grandeur claims of success.




Organisation: Montana Meth Project
Campaign: Faces of Meth
When: 2004 -
Propaganda: 6/10
Laugh Out Loud Rating: 7/10



You have to give some credit to an organisation that plasters billboards all over the US showing scabby, deteriorating faces in an attempt to sell something. Granted, it wasn’t perfume or a yummy hamburger but still, a risky marketing strategy. But this was an anti-drug campaign, where organisations compete to bring us the nastiest, most confronting images possible. The search for an effective message to reduce risky drug use isn’t the goal here. This is the world of the anti-drug nutter where lies, moral imperatives and exaggerated scenarios win out over facts and reality. 

The bottom line: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) does not work. The powerful images of what too much meth can do to you have taken away the need to analyse the actually results. Like most scare campaigns, confronting images are automatically credited as being effective. The truth is, scare campaigns about drugs have never worked but after 70 years of Reefer Madness and showing the extreme circumstances of chronic drug abuse, they still don’t. They might help parents and the public feel like something is being done. They might portray a proactive police force or vigilant politician. They might even deter a drug user for a short while. But in the end, it’s the facts that count and the reality that the US public has been played by the powerful anti-drug lobby.


Montana Meth Project Didn't Reduce Use, Study Finds

Stop The Drug War (Issue #650)
by Phillip Smith
September 2010 

In 2005, Montana had one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the country, and businessman Thomas Siebel responded with the Montana Meth Project, an anti-meth campaign relying on graphic advertisements feature users' bodies decaying, teen girls prostituting themselves for meth, teens committing violent crimes to support their habits, and groups of young meth users allowing their friends to die.

The project has been widely touted as reducing meth use rates in Montana, and the Montana Meth Project makes similar claims on its results page. Based on claimed results in Montana, similar programs have gotten underway in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and, this past March, Georgia.

But a new study from the University of Washington published in this month's issue of the Journal of Health Economics casts doubt on the project's claim to have influenced meth use rates. The rate of meth use in Montana was already declining by the time the Montana Meth Project got underway, the study found.

"Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use," said study author D. Mark Anderson, a UW doctoral student in economics.

Anderson said the project had not been empirically and rigorously scrutinized until his study. Using data from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Anderson compared meth use rates to rates nationwide and in nearby states. Using demographically similar Wyoming and North Dakota, which undertook no anti-meth project programs, as control cases, Anderson showed that in all three states, meth use declined gradually between 1999 and 2009.

Anderson also scrutinized drug treatment admission reports from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and found that the Montana Meth Project had no measurable effect on meth use among young Montanans. His findings suggested that other factors, such as law enforcement crackdowns prior to 2005 or increasing knowledge of the ill-effects of meth use, were more likely to have led to declining levels of meth use.

"Perhaps word got around on the street, long before the campaign was adopted, that meth is devastating," Anderson said. "Future research, perhaps of meth projects in the other states, should determine whether factors that preceded the campaigns contributed to decreases in usage."


More from the Propaganda Files

Saturday 25 September 2010

The 2010 AFL Grand Final and Drugs

First of all - Congratulations Carlton on an excellent win over Collingwood. A huge crowd of 112,964 packed the MCG to witness another victory for Carlton. Ashman booted 3 goals, Maclure, McKay and Sheldon each kicked 2 each with Johnston, Buckley and Harmes kicking 1 apiece. Carlton’s best were Doull, Fitzpatrick, Hunter and Marcou with great performances by Maylin, English, Howell, Harmes, Perovic and Glascott. 

The first tap out of the game was won by Mike Fitzpatrick, and scooped up by Ken Sheldon. In a tight opening quarter, the Blues would score first after a nice 1-handed mark from Maclure, but it would…

Ooops, that was 1981.

The 2010 Grand Final just finished a few hours ago and I’m still high as a kite. Not from drugs but from the incredible spectacle called Australian Rules Football. This game was so exciting, so invigorating, so fucking fantastic that I am wondering if we actually need drugs. Okay, so the game was a draw but what a draw it was. Speed might be intense, ecstasy can be exhilarating and pot can be trippy but what I saw today reconfirmed that footy is mind blowing.

Today’s game between Collingwood and St-Kilda was Aussie rules at it’s best and it was on display for the whole world to see. I doubt you will find many people who saw the game who would complain that they weren’t fully entertained. Like most people, I usually draw the line at watching footy that doesn’t involve my team - except the Grand Final of course. But Grand Finals can end up quite boring especially when your team isn’t playing. 

Now this is where drugs come in handy. Many Aussies watching the Grand Final also indulge in some heavy drug taking. Yes, I’m talking about ethanol, booze or alcohol. And like most drugs, alcohol can make the experience more intense, more fun or more exciting. Fantastic for when your team is winning, adding excitement when your team is not playing and filling the void when the game is boring. I must admit that alcohol is the ideal drug to take when watching footy. I have previously watched footy on speed, pot and heroin but booze wins out by a long shot.

Ethanol, also called ethyl alcohol, pure alcohol, grain alcohol, or drinking alcohol, is a volatile, flammable, colorless liquid. It is a powerful psychoactive drug and one of the oldest recreational drugs. It is best known as the type of alcohol found in alcoholic beverages and thermometers.
[…]
The fermentation of sugar into ethanol is one of the earliest organic reactions employed by humanity. The intoxicating effects of ethanol consumption have been known since ancient times. In modern times, ethanol intended for industrial use is also produced from by-products of petroleum refining. Ethanol has widespread use as a solvent of substances intended for human contact or consumption, including scents, flavorings, colorings, and medicines. In chemistry, it is both an essential solvent and a feedstock for the synthesis of other products. It has a long history as a fuel for heat and light, and more recently as a fuel for internal combustion engines.

Unfortunately, Collingwood didn’t lose and the game was a draw which means there will be a rematch next week. With 100,000 fans, 2 football teams and a spattering of officials looking so bewildered and ultimately, let down, there will be plenty of debate about the current system. And I’m sure it will change after today’s result. Although it was an amazing game, there needed to be a clear winner. If not for the sake of the teams who focussed so heavily all week on today’s match but the poor old public who will have to, once again over indulge in their favourite drug, alcohol.

Thursday 23 September 2010

What Happens When You Can’t Trust the Experts?

I have a general rule when it comes to drug policy … trust the experts. But what happens when the experts start dishing out anti-drug rhetoric reminiscent of our politicians?

This week, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by 2 of Australia’s leading experts on drugs, Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall. As I read through their article, I couldn’t help but notice some perplexing issues in their argument which prompted me to question my existing beliefs. Have I been wrong all this time? After some checking and careful consideration, I concluded that I wasn’t wrong at all but the article itself was flawed.

Interestingly, the title of the article is, Beating The Drug Trade Isn't About Black-And-White Solutions. It’s interesting because the authors go on to give an almost black-and-white argument against against any solution that may well end the drug trade. 

Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall focus on 5 points which they claimed were key to the drug debate.

The war on drugs has failed because it's still easy to obtain illegal drugs
This is like arguing that the laws against drink driving have failed because thousands of people each year continue to drink and drive.

The purpose of drug law enforcement is not to make illicit drugs impossible to obtain. The primary justification for prohibition (and the enforcement activity that underpins it) is that it keeps illicit drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be. This, in turn, keeps illicit drug consumption and drug-related harm lower than they would otherwise be. The heroin shortage in 2000 showed us that higher drug prices do reduce levels of drug-related crime, morbidity and mortality. We ought, therefore, to be wary of any policy that reduces the cost of illegal drugs.

Apples and oranges - people are not addicted to drink-driving and any pressure to cease this practice will deter those who drink and drive. And occurrences of drink-driving have decreased considerably since we started educating the public to the dangers involved along with the police who regularly blitz the roads with booze busses and mobile patrols. But, for all the scare campaigns and billions spent on policing, drug use has increased ten fold since the 1970s. We are less likely to drive around drunk anymore because we are bound to get caught but since we started in earnest to police drugs, they are now cheaper, more available and stronger. In other words, the drink-driving strategies have worked but the "War on Drugs" has failed miserably by any standard.

The heroin draught argument needs some clarification. There was no “heroin draught” after 2000 but a return to the same levels before the heroin surge in 1997. The return to higher prices just cleaned out the recent and casual users who took it up when heroin was awash in the community. The hard core users remained.

The main point missed by Weatherburn and Hall, is the carnage caused by higher prices. Increasing prices for illicit drugs has clearly shown to cause more violence and crime. Addicts will commit crime to feed their addiction which is purely a result of high prices. If the purpose of prohibition is to increase prices and therefore reduce drug use and harm, then prohibition isn’t working very well.

If we legalise drug use and possession, more people will use illicit drugs
This argument sounds plausible because most people won't do something they know to be illegal.

However, the fact is that most studies of drug use decriminalisation find it has little effect on the prevalence of illicit drug use, except where the state turns a blind eye to drug supply (as happened a few years ago in the Netherlands).

There is a risk that decriminalising illicit drug use will increase consumption among existing dependent users. Since they account for most of the harm associated with illicit drug use, this is a matter for concern. Treatment, however, is almost certainly more effective than punishment in reducing drug consumption among dependent users.

Maybe the authors should have mentioned that most people who want to use drugs, do so already, regardless of the law. Saying that we should be concerned that decriminalisation raises the risk of dependant users increasing their consumption is odd when the next line states that treatment more effective than punishment. Sure, decriminalisation without increased treatment is probably a waste of time but why would any government leave out this important part?

The fact is, there is no evidence to suggest that removing or lowering penalties for drugs will increase drug use. The opposite is true. All the evidence points towards less drug use and more users seeking treatment.

If the state provided drugs to dependent users, the black market for drugs would collapse, thereby reducing if not eliminating drug-related crime
The main problem with this argument is that if the state did succeed in meeting a large portion of the demand for illicit drugs like heroin, the price of drugs on the black market could fall. This may encourage more people into the illicit drug market.

A second problem is that some drugs (such as amphetamines) have quite toxic mental health effects if used regularly. The state cannot be expected to offer toxic drugs to people just to avoid creating a black market.

A third problem is that medicalising a problem does not necessarily reduce crime and corruption. Witness the problems we are having with pharmaceutical opioids, such as oxycodone.

I am surprised that someone with as much knowledge as Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall, have come up with these over simplified answers. This is the problem with most of the opposition to drug law reform - single solution responses. Legalising drugs does not mean selling heroin at the local 7-11 store. It would enable cheap, quality illicit drugs to be purchased safely from pharmacies with a prescription from a doctor. A black market would find it almost impossible to compete on price or quality. Anyone wanting drugs can do so with a visit to a doctor, removing most incentives for black market drug dealers. Since we already know that most people who want to use drugs already do so, there would be very little increase in new drug users. Also, drugs would become boring to our youth when the mystique is taken away. Like in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany - prescription heroin has changed the image of heroin to an old person’s drug. Seeing middle aged people line up for their daily shots at Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) clinics is not very sexy nor alluring to rebellious youth. Not only do these countries now have very low rates of new users but there are also fewer heroin dealers to get them started. 

Weatherburn and Hall argue that medicalising a problem does not necessarily reduce crime and corruption. This is part of the argument opposing legalisation because legal pharmaceuticals like Xanax, oxycondone, morphine etc. also have a huge black market as illicit drugs do. The glaring flaw is that these pharmaceuticals cannot be prescribed for addicts or recreational use. A better comparison would be alcohol as I am yet to hear about pubs fighting it out in the streets with guns for their share of the market. 

The other point raised by Weatherburn and Hall is that “some drugs (such as amphetamines) have quite toxic mental health effects if used regularly. and ”The state cannot be expected to offer toxic drugs to people just to avoid creating a black market”. The main drug of addiction - heroin - is non toxic and can be taken safely for decades. But that’s not the point. Users are taking these drugs anyway, which are almost always cut with contaminants. Swapping dirty street drugs with pharmaceutical quality drugs is a no-brainer. Feeling guilty is not an excuse to keep people using unregulated, contaminated chemicals when a clean alternative exists. The hard truth is, some people will use drugs regardless of the potential harms or the law. Weatherburn and Hall try to make this a moral issue where giving illicit drugs to existing users is somehow worse than sitting by and watching them hurt themselves by their own accord. 

But the strangest claim is that providing drugs to existing users is worse than the huge black market that prohibition has created. This is not science but the usual anti-drug rhetoric we should not expect from experts. How did they concluded that simply giving users a clean batch of what they would consume anyway is worse than the millions of people who have their lives ruined every year? Or the thousands who die or are injured from drug gang violence. Or the massive drug fighting budgets that could be used to wipe out global poverty? Or the hundreds of thousands who are incarcerated each year? 

Every kilo of illegal drugs we seize is one less on the streets
The problem with this argument is that drug traffickers can often make up for any losses they suffer by importing or supplying replacement drugs. The cost of seizures, moreover, is a lot less for them than it appears.

Police routinely state the value of drugs they seize in terms of their retail - street - cost as if this were the financial loss to the importer and distributor. But the cost of importing and distributing drugs is far less than the cost of consuming them. The effect of a drug seizure on the importer or the distributor's profit margin, therefore, is less than it appears. The profits for drug importers and distributors when they avoid detection are potentially huge.

They are correct on this point but should have gone further. With so much money being poured into customs, boarder protection and the policing of drugs, the authorities need to appear they paying their way. How often do we see or hear about some drug bust, often with pictures of the police in front of their prized stockpile of confiscated contraband? And how often do we hear that this bust will make a dent in the drug market. According to the police themselves, we only stop about 10-15% of all the drugs illegally entering Australia. Apart from raising the obvious issue about how futile this all seems, we have to wonder how they actually know it’s only 10-15%.

Treatment is more effective than drug law enforcement in reducing demand for illicit drugs.
This is perhaps the most misleading of all the arguments put forward about illicit drug policy.

It's a sad fact that many dependent drug users only seek treatment when the personal and financial cost of continued drug use gets too high. The financial cost is attributable in large part to prohibition. The personal cost includes trouble with police and the courts, which is one of the most commonly cited reasons for entering treatment. Coercing drug-dependent offenders into treatment is known to be effective in reducing drug use and drug-related crime.

What are the authors saying? It appears that they applaud the carnage caused by prohibition because it encourages users to seek treatment. Ruining people’s lives is a harsh way to help those with a drug problem and frankly, it’s disturbing that the authors don’t condemn it. They know better than anyone that coercing addicts into treatment might help some in the short term but unless they’re ready to give up drugs, it is a pointless exercise. The damage to people’s lives is one of the main arguments against our punitive drug laws. The big question is, why do we allow the lives of addicts to fall apart so they can be coerced into treatment?

Here is a quote from an earlier point made in the article, “Treatment, however, is almost certainly more effective than punishment in reducing drug consumption among dependent users”. Confused? To apply prohibition, you have to have a system involving punishment. But what if we took away the penalties (and the black market) where drug users could go through the addiction process under the supervision of medical experts? We could avoid the bulk of problems associated with drug use … the effects of prohibition.


The Move to the Mainstream
Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall are not the only experts who seem to have softened their opposition to current drug policies. Over the years, there has been several cases of groups or individuals swapping their beliefs in evidence based science for a more government friendly, anti-drug approach. This is disappointing as more and more people realise the futility of our drug policies.

Australia’s official research group into drug use, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) was established at the University of New South Wales in May, 1986 and officially opened in November, 1987. It is funded by the Australian Government as part of the National Drug Strategy. Surprisingly, they were void of the government’s usual anti-drug rhetoric and if anything, gave plenty of evidence on why we should change our drug laws. But in 2007, the government expand NDARC with the dubious National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC). Instead of following the strictly evidence only attitude of NDARC, NCPIC was headed up by a well known anti-cannabis zealot and returned us to the good old days of scare campaigns a.k.a. reefer madness. NCPIC is supposed to be an evidence based group like it’s sister-group, NDARC but including the word, prevention in it’s title must ring a few warning bells in the science community.

Another major worry is the appointment of NCPIC’s National Communications Manager, Paul Dillion. As the Media Liaison/Information Manager for NDARC, Paul was once known for his balanced views on our drug situation and his attacks on the media for their disgraceful reporting of drug issues. That seems to have been replaced with some sort of loyalty to pushing NCPIC’s agenda.

Although The Greens are not technically experts on drugs, they were one of the few political parties who supported an evidence based drug policy. While other parties might have mentioned evidence as part of their policies, The Greens actually modelled their drug policy on science, research and real evidence. Unfortunately, The Greens succumbed to the pressure involved in becoming a major political party and watered down their drug policy. Sadly, any political party wanting to be popular has to bow to public ignorance on drug related issues.

The same has happened in the UK where a coalition of conservative and progressive parties has seen The Liberal Democrats support a push for abstinence based treatment to replace substitution programs like methadone and the removal of welfare for drug addicts. Almost a complete polar position of their evidence based drug policy before they formed government.

It’s disappointing that in 2010, we are still pushing drug policies that wreak so much carnage although we now have decades of proof to show us our mistakes. But it’s even more disappointing that experts like Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall are prepared to overturn their once logical assumptions for weak but popular views.

To read more analyse about the article in the Sydney Morning Herald, check out The Kings Cross Times.


Beating The Drug Trade Isn't About Black-And-White Solutions
By Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall
September 2010

A combination of law enforcement and treatment is the key, write Don Weatherburn and Wayne Hall.

No sooner do signs emerge of another drug problem than we hear predictable calls to treat illicit drug use as a health rather than a crime problem. These calls mirror the rhetoric from supporters of an all-out war on illicit drug use.

Neither side in this debate sees any merit in its opponents' arguments. Both sides try to persuade you that we face a stark choice between investment in treatment and harm reduction or, on the other hand, prohibition and drug law enforcement.

Let's critically assess five of the arguments often put forward by both sides in this debate.

Argument number one is that the war on drugs has failed because it's still easy to obtain illegal drugs. This is like arguing that the laws against drink driving have failed because thousands of people each year continue to drink and drive.

The purpose of drug law enforcement is not to make illicit drugs impossible to obtain. The primary justification for prohibition (and the enforcement activity that underpins it) is that it keeps illicit drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be. This, in turn, keeps illicit drug consumption and drug-related harm lower than they would otherwise be. The heroin shortage in 2000 showed us that higher drug prices do reduce levels of drug-related crime, morbidity and mortality. We ought, therefore, to be wary of any policy that reduces the cost of illegal drugs.

Argument number two is that if we legalise drug use and possession, more people will use illicit drugs. This argument sounds plausible because most people won't do something they know to be illegal.

However, the fact is that most studies of drug use decriminalisation find it has little effect on the prevalence of illicit drug use, except where the state turns a blind eye to drug supply (as happened a few years ago in the Netherlands).

There is a risk that decriminalising illicit drug use will increase consumption among existing dependent users. Since they account for most of the harm associated with illicit drug use, this is a matter for concern. Treatment, however, is almost certainly more effective than punishment in reducing drug consumption among dependent users.

Argument number three is that if the state provided drugs to dependent users, the black market for drugs would collapse, thereby reducing if not eliminating drug-related crime. The main problem with this argument is that if the state did succeed in meeting a large portion of the demand for illicit drugs like heroin, the price of drugs on the black market could fall. This may encourage more people into the illicit drug market.

A second problem is that some drugs (such as amphetamines) have quite toxic mental health effects if used regularly. The state cannot be expected to offer toxic drugs to people just to avoid creating a black market.

A third problem is that medicalising a problem does not necessarily reduce crime and corruption. Witness the problems we are having with pharmaceutical opioids, such as oxycodone.

Argument number four is that every kilo of illegal drugs we seize is one less on the streets. The problem with this argument is that drug traffickers can often make up for any losses they suffer by importing or supplying replacement drugs. The cost of seizures, moreover, is a lot less for them than it appears.

Police routinely state the value of drugs they seize in terms of their retail - street - cost as if this were the financial loss to the importer and distributor. But the cost of importing and distributing drugs is far less than the cost of consuming them. The effect of a drug seizure on the importer or the distributor's profit margin, therefore, is less than it appears. The profits for drug importers and distributors when they avoid detection are potentially huge.

Argument number five is that treatment is more effective than drug law enforcement in reducing demand for illicit drugs. This is perhaps the most misleading of all the arguments put forward about illicit drug policy.

It's a sad fact that many dependent drug users only seek treatment when the personal and financial cost of continued drug use gets too high. The financial cost is attributable in large part to prohibition. The personal cost includes trouble with police and the courts, which is one of the most commonly cited reasons for entering treatment. Coercing drug-dependent offenders into treatment is known to be effective in reducing drug use and drug-related crime.

We don't have to choose between treatment and drug law enforcement. We can and should support both.

Dr Don Weatherburn is director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and Professor Wayne Hall is the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia Fellow at the University of Queensland.

Saturday 18 September 2010

Q & A: Fiona Patten - Leader of The Australian Sex Party

Name: Fiona Patten
Role: President of the The Australian Sex Party and candidate for the senate in the 2010 Federal election. 
Date: September 2010

Prior to the election, Ms Wright and I talked about starting our own political party. We discussed a few key policies and then decided on the name, The Common Sense Party. It might have only been a bit of fun at the time but incredibly, I found a party with almost identical policies - the Australian Sex Party. What really stood out was their drug policy with a call for drug use to be a health issue, not a criminal problem. And on top of this were the convictions of their leader, Fiona Patten. A pretty good start for my introduction to the Australian Sex Party.

In the 2010 federal election, the Australian Sex Party received over 250,000 first preferences for the senate which is more than 2% of the national vote. Maybe next election, Fiona will get her party over line and a place in the senate. With so many dubious politicians currently holding office and the conservative trend in Australian politics, Fiona’s pragmatic views on drug policy would be greatly welcomed.

I admire everyone who participates in this Q & A and Fiona Patten is no exception. Putting your convictions out for public scrutiny is not for the faint hearted especially in the political arena. But, it’s the lack of political garble from Fiona, that sets her aside from most mainstream politicians. Just like the debate on Channel Seven’s Sunrise where Fiona and Family First’s Wendy Francis went head to head. It was interesting to see how Wendy Francis resembled an old political workhorse without ever holding office while Fiona avoided much of the usual rhetoric. I like Fiona Patten, I like her style and her policies. It’s a shame we don’t have more politicians like her debating the facts without the bullshit. 

More about Fiona Patten (Wikipedia)


Questions 

Why do you have such strong views about drug policy? 
Firstly we are a civil libertarian party and want to see less government intervention in our private lives. Personally drugs have impacted on my life in many ways. I have lost friends, nearly lost family members and have taken drugs myself.

Why do you support decriminalisation rather than legalising drugs? 
Decriminalisation takes drugs out of the legal framework rather than creating a new legal framework. I think decriminalisation for personal use especially is the right approach.

You support medical marijuana, which many experts consider is just common sense. Why has this issue not been debated so readily in Australia like the US? 
Good question! 

Do you support more safe injection clinics like the Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC)? 
I certainly do either as clinics such as the King Cross one or mobile versions. The evidence proves beyond doubt that they save lives. It was very disappointing that Victorian Premier Brumby has ruled out establishing such a service in Victoria. I have spent of a lot of the last decade in and around Kings Cross and I have seen a reduction in public drug use. 

Do you think a needle exchange program is needed in prisons? 
Yes without a doubt as well as making condoms available. 

Do you support Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) programs? 
Yes. Again the evidence is there to show that these programs are successful. From a layman such as myself why would you exchange one addictive drug for another in treating the addiction of the first? It seems far more sensible to continue treatment with the original drug.

You and your party have had some favourable press of late. Were you expecting the press to be so endearing? 
We are still a very young party but I think the media is starting to get over their initial giggles. I think that they may also be recognising that our platform represents the opinions of a lot of Australians.

Do you feel it’s someone’s right to take illicit drugs? 
I believe that adults should have the right to choose how they live their lives. We have abolished laws against attempted suicide and suicide. No one says it better than John Stuart Mill.
“The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” 

Do you or have you used drugs(including alcohol) recreationally? 
Yes and Yes

What are your thoughts on The Greens changing their drug policy to be more in line with the major political parties? 
It doesn't surprise me. They are now one of the majors. It is the price of success, you want more. But to achieve that you need to attract votes from broader and broader sections of the community. I also think that as the Green's party machine grows it becomes more conservative and preferring "safe" policy options. 

Australia appears to be following the US and placing more emphasis on religion in politics. Do you feel this effects our drug policy? 
Apart from Graham Long at Wayside chapel I have not heard a religious leader ever call for drug law reform. Most religions by nature are about controlling the actions of people and this of course extends to drugs. I remember when the head of the Salvos was on Prime Minister Howard's Drug council - he held us back hugely.

Do you have any predictions for the future of Australia’s drug policy under a Labor or Liberal government? 
Sadly I doubt much will change although there are a number of reformers such as Dr Alex Wodak who are trying to present an economic argument for law reform and maybe that will cut through.

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 have certainly had a some passionate arguments with people including some of our candidates about our drug policy but when you can show the research and evidence I usually bring them around. I probably live in a bit of a bubble but most of the people I some into contact with acknowledge that the "war on drugs" has failed.

Do you think the general public understand the damage caused by the "War on Drugs"? 
I think more and more are seeing through the rhetoric of "being hard on drugs". So many people's lives have now been affected by drugs. They know someone who's life was damaged by drugs or whose home/car was broken into because of drugs. They probably are not aware of the cost of the war and maybe Alex Wodak is right, that is the story we need to be telling.

What do you think of politicians being labelled “Soft on Drugs” when they suggest alternatives to current drug strategies? 
I feel disappointment when a politician is labelled as such. The few politicians I know who have suggested alternatives are some of the toughest people I know. Kate Carnell in the ACT is a good example.

Finally, if you were Prime Minister Fiona Patten and you could change one law relating to drug policy or drug treatment, what would it be?
I have never found it easy to choose one of anything but in this case I would introduce one law and that would be similar to the Portugese Decriminalisation Statute that would set in place a framework to decriminalise the use and possession of all 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)
Q and A: Tony Trimingham - Chief Executive Officer, Family Drug Support
Q and A: Andrew Bartlett - Former Leader of the Australian Democrats and the Australian Senate. Candidate for the Greens in the 2010 Federal election.


Sunday 12 September 2010

Heroin Addiction is a Bitch

I hate heroin … I also love it. I love it when I have it but hate it when I don’t. It’s an easy drug to love and an easy drug to hate but since most of us can’t afford to be pinned all the time, there’s probably more hate than love. Yep, using heroin is definitely a love-hate relationship.

Luckily, I’m not currently using heroin everyday as I am on substitution treatment. My heroin use is limited to about once a month, which might sound like a lot to non-users but believe me, it’s nothing compared to the usual 90 or so hits needed each month when you’re an active user. 

But this is where we need to separate the myths from reality. There is a big difference between the public perception of heroin addiction and the actual cycle of heroin-methadone-relapse-heroin-methadone-relapse... etc. For a longer term addict, using heroin is not about the high but something far more alluring … normality. The quest to feel some of those human traits like optimism, happiness, contentment etc. far exceeds the need to get high. Substitution treatments like methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone might help with withdrawals or be a life changer for many but the stark truth is that they can also help fuel depression and emptiness. I have experienced this first hand and I must admit … I didn’t like it. The methadone blues are not on my wish list for Santa.

When a person is addicted to something they cannot control how they use it, and become dependent on it to cope with daily life.

I once experimented with using heroin everyday instead of methadone and surprisingly, I found myself far more productive and level headed than I had been in years. It cost me well over $1500 for the week and I needed to use three times a day, including an afternoon hit at work. Not exactly conducive with leading a normal life.

What if you could use heroin everyday without having to worry about the law and the money to afford it? Is it really any different to the 700mg of Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) that I take everyday? Is it any different to a daily dose of methadone? Some countries prescribe heroin (diacetylmorphine) to longer term addicts who don't respond to other treatments and so far, it has been very successful. Unfortunately, Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is not available in Australia so any attempt to self medicate with heroin, must be done illegally and expensively, away from medical supervision.

Methadone remains a pretty good first-line treatment, but either the switch to heroin or using heroin as an adjunct obviously has increased effectiveness for this difficult population.

Heroin addiction is a bitch. But so are the current alternatives. Those who do not respond well to the available treatments like rehab, detox or substitution treatment, are in a real bind and inevitably turn to crime to fund their addiction. This is a costly outcome for both the user and society, especially when there is a ready solution like Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT). I often think that if I could just get my hands on enough money, I could stock up on diacetylmorphine(heroin) and start to experience a better quality of life. My depression goes away when medicated on heroin and I start to feel somewhat human again. When dosed with heroin, I don’t look like a junky nor act like one but instead, I am capable of performing in a high pressure job, contributing to my community and living a productive life. The simple truth is that heroin can be an effective anti-depressant for some people.

But the dreaming must stop. After 40 years of anti-drug propaganda and the never ending message that heroin addicts are dysfunctional, dangerous sub-humans, the idea that heroin itself might be an effective treatment is just too much for the public and politicians to grasp. Each year, we churn out more and more opiate addicts and although many will finally kick their habit, many will not. Out of this remaining group will be those who were born with a predisposition for opiate addiction e.g. an imbalance in their brain's chemistry, some of the 66 known genes that promote the need for opiates, a persistent impairment of synaptic plasticity in a key structure of the brain etc. It may be impossible for some people to comprehend but this small group of addicts have a physical problem and are not simply selfish losers with no will power. But try telling that to the powers-that-be or a largely ignorant public.

We have an increasingly clear idea of how genetic and early childhood influences lie at the heart of the development of addiction and how the neurochemistry of the brain renders users unable to simply stop using.

In 2010, it’s abysmal that a so called “advanced society”, continues to promote laws that punish these people. At the top end are the addicts that sell drug to other addicts. Amazingly, they are lumped into the same class as child molesters, murderers and rapists. But these small time user/dealers are not doing it for profits or the lifestyle but to self medicate a medical condition. It’s a catch-22 situation where they have 2 options, both of which attract harsh legal penalties and public vindictiveness. When confronted with the choice between crimes that hurt people like stealing, theft, robberies etc. or simply selling drugs to friends or other users, most will choose the latter. But deciding not to inflict any pain on others and instead, choosing a victimless crime like drug dealing, we condemn them with as much venom as possible. 

Many countries even have mandatory drug laws that take away the power for a judge to intervene when there are mitigating circumstances. Incredibly, in 1956, the US passed the first mandatory sentence via an act that made a first time cannabis possession offence a minimum of 2 to 10 years with a fine up to $20,000. It was repealed in 1970. In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (112g) of a hard drug. The most famous mandatory sentence is the “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law that has been implemented in many countries since the 1990s. This has caused a huge increase in drug users being jailed for lengthy periods - usually 25 years to life. You know something is greatly amiss when being caught 3 times for drug possession can send you to jail for life or when small time user/dealers are imprisoned for longer than violent criminals.


Dealer Who 'Hated' His Heroin Addiction Jailed
By Staff Reporter

A "SMALL-SCALE" heroin dealer who sold £10 wraps to undercover police officers has been sent to jail for five years and eight months.

John Birchall, 45, of Morgan Avenue, Torquay, "hated" his addiction to heroin but found he could not survive without it, Exeter Crown Court was told.

He pleaded guilty on a previous occasion to five counts of supplying and intending to supply the Class A drug to undercover officers in May.

Judge Barry Cotter said he had no choice but to impose a minimum seven-year term, minus credit for a guilty plea, as it was the third time Birchall had been convicted for a supply offence.


The judge said: "It inevitably has to be a custodial sentence."

Prosecutor Emily Pitts said Birchall had been caught as part of a police sting operation.

Two undercover officers made inquiries on the street about heroin and Birchall, known as "Scouse John", was identified as a man who could "sort them out".

Three wraps containing £10 of heroin were supplied to the officers on separate occasions. Each wrap contained 0.1 grams of the drug.

Three more wraps, weighing 0.5 grams, were sold on another occasion. A further wrap, which turned out to be ibuprofen, was sold in a fifth deal.

Anne Bellchambers, in mitigation, said Birchall has been showing improved signs of dealing with his addiction.

She added: "He says he's been taking drugs since he was 14. He hates it but it leads him back into this sort of offending every time.

"It is small-scale supply with little or no profit — under £200 for these deals."

Judge Cotter said his hands were tied about what sentence to impose considering his past offences.

"The reality of the matter is that after an undercover police operation, you have been convicted of a third drug trafficking offence.

"That means I have to impose a particular sentence."

The judge added: "The brutal reality is that society has taken a view of those that continue to be involved in drug trafficking that if you persistently get involved in such conduct, you face a long custodial sentence."

He said he hoped Birchall would "still have the motivation" to quit drugs when he got out.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of supplying the Class A drug, one of being concerned in its supply and one of offering to supply the drug.

He was given a total sentence of 68 months.


Related Articles