Sunday 30 January 2011

Justice is a Joke

The insatiable hunger to punish drug users is reaching an exploding point. Each week, we are seeing more and more drug users being ceremoniously hunted down by police to appease the public for any drug related death. The growing trend involves a fanatical quest to place the blame on someone or anyone if there is no clear culprit.  It usually involves an overdose where police are left with only a body and not someone they can prosecute. Driven by a media frenzy, drug hysteria and a section of the community who demand justice, you are left with law makers and politicians who must find an offender to charge. There seems to be no room for an accidental death anymore when drugs are concerned.

Acquaintance Gets 10 Years For Supplying Fatal Heroin To College Student
By Bruce Nolan, 
January 2011   

A federal judge sentenced a 22-year-old New Orleans man to 10 years in jail for supplying the heroin that killed college student Pierce Sharai at a Carnival party in 2008.

U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle sentenced Gary Toca to 10 years in prison for his role in Sharai's death.

He is the third person to go to jail for his role in Sharai's death. And he's the eighth person to go to jail in connection with overdoses that killed three young people within weeks of each other in early 2008.

Sharai, 19, was a biochemistry major in enrolled in LSU's Honors College when he died.

Earlier reports disclosed that Sharai and friends spent the night of Jan. 19, the night of the Krewe du Vieux parade, doing drugs at a downtown hotel.

Federal prosecutors said Toca, Sharai and an unidentified third person pooled their money to buy heroin that night.

They said Toca made the heroin purchase, returned to the hotel and provided the heroin to Sharai.
Sharai overdosed and died early the next morning.

He was one of seven young people who died of heroin-related overdoses in the first five weeks of that year. Sharai and two others, including 16-year-old Madeleine Prevost, a senior at Lusher High School, were loosely linked by common acquaintances.

Their deaths launched a federal investigation that so far has sent four men to prison for participating in the drug chain that supplied Prevost.

Toca becomes the third man to go to prison for supplying Sharai.

Still another man, Matthew Olvany, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and drug distribution in connection with a third overdose death early that year, that of 21-year-old Zac Moser.

The case above has exposed how dangerous anti-drug rhetoric has become. This sick, new trend to dish out ultra severe penalties when there’s a drug related death has hit new extremes and we, as a society need to demand for it to stop. Three friends chip in to buy drugs and when one of them fatally overdoses, the police charge the person who made the purchase. It doesn’t matter that all three of them pooled their money and he was simply nominated to buy the drugs. The police want someone’s head to roll and those still standing are fair game. 

You would be safe to assume that the police would write this off as a terrible accident. They have, after all, already arrested and imprisoned several people involved in a series of overdoses linked to this death. They have a family mourning the death of their son and a bunch of young friends who are coming to terms with their loss. What drives the police to create even more carnage by sending a young university student to prison for 10 years? Especially when his crime was simply being chosen to make the purchase.

It seems that Gary Toca was a Jesuit Alumni, in the prestigious honors program at the LSU (Louisiana State University)and has no criminal background. Although he once was an addict, he had been clean for over two years and helped with high school students around the city in an attempt to keep them from making the same mistake. He even cooperated with agents in attempts to take down the ring of heroin dealers. What purpose is served by incarcerating Gary Toca? This young man has so much to offer and once, a fantastic future. The only thing stopping him was a history of addiction which he seemed to be managing. Now his future has been ripped out from under him all in the name of justice. What sort of sick fuckers would go to such extremes to ruin this man’s life?

This is so insane yet typical of how a brainwashed nation will act. Day after day we see the authorities, the media and the anti-drug brigade massively exaggerating the harms from drug use. We are bombarded with distorted statistics and cherry picked data that’s positioned to create the maximum hysteria. Yes, drugs can be dangerous,  just like alcohol, mountain climbing and horse riding but demonising addicts and users as ruthless, evil outcasts just leads to mob mentality in some parts of the community. 

When someone dies or overdoses, we should be saddened that someone’s wife, father or sister has come to a tragic end. But the reality is morbid and disturbing. There are many self righteous twats who will cruelly say they got what they deserve for using drugs. There are others who understand the complexities of drug use and simply feel sadness for someone else’s loss. They don’t feel the need to judge others for what is a tragic situation. Then there’s those who want revenge but dress it up as demanding justice. 

The latest political football is crime and sentencing. Although we have learnt that extended jail terms, mandatory sentencing or a ‘throw-away-the-key’ policy do not make us any safer, the public demand to be ‘tough on crime’ still dominates the political scene. And those politicians looking to be elected are more than willing to promise a crackdown on lenient sentences and to toughen criminal laws. Their ticket to success is a fearful public and there’s no better panic button than the mention of drugs.


Related Articles

Monday 24 January 2011

A Normal Weekend on Drugs?

I wonder if this weekend is what policy makers envisaged when they created our drug laws? Somehow I doubt it.

I assume their mission would have involved a few basics like evidence based strategies, plans for reduced drug use and a quiet confidence that they would be winning the "War on Drugs”. Oops.

Instead, we got 40 people arrested for party drugs at a music festival, cops admitting that drugs cause very few problems in the night club districts and a bunch of self righteous loonies protesting about evidence based health programs. Oh, and an admission from police that they are losing the fight against organised criminals specialising in drug distribution. And what’s the weekend’s news without the media quoting some old, discredited information while trying to embellish a drug story? In an article about a student drug dealer, the Herald-Sun have drudged up that old fable about a mephedrone user who tried to rip off his own scrotum with his bare hands. Along with The Age, they also said that mephedrone was ‘linked to’ 25 deaths in Britain although it had been publicly revealed six months ago that most of them actually died from another cause and simply had traces of the drug in their system.

That’s a lot of bad news for law makers and politicians especially for a quiet weekend. What it does though is remind us that experts give out advice for a reason - they are experts. Good intentions and agenda driven policies have a habit of returning to bite you on the arse when you ignore the experts. And this can’t be any clearer than drug policy.

What we desperately need to avoid is the ramblings of social commentators and outrageous opinion writers who also refuse to take on the advice and findings of experts. These are the people you see at parties who argue every point about every issue and when challenged will laugh off their debate loss with, ‘Oh, don’t mind me … I have an opinion about everything’. Having an opinion is fine but having some proper knowledge about the issue is probably a good idea.

Just what we need - Prue Macsween giving us her opinion on health policy.
(Shouldn't she be hosting the daily bimbo news or something?)


Related Articles:

Monday 10 January 2011

The Political Will to End Drug Prohibition

The Victorian branch of the Australian Democrats have recently released an action plan titled, Australian Democrats Plan To Halve Crime. At it’s core is a proposal to radically change our drug policy and introduce controlled government sales of illicit drugs to registered users. 

Apart from The Australian Sex Party, The Democrats are the only well know political party that support an end to drug prohibition. The Greens were once infamous for their “radical” drug legalisation policy but have since fallen in line with other mainstream political groups. Sensibly, they still support limited decriminalisation of some drug use and 'safe' injecting rooms.

In an effort to highlight the failures of our current drug laws, the Democrats have done what should have been done years ago. They provided a comparison list showing the pros and cons of uncontrolled criminal supply versus controlled government supply.

The democrats action plan lays out some hard truths about drug prohibition. They point out that almost half of all crime is caused by alcohol and illicit drug use and even after decades of prohibition, illicit drugs are freely available to anyone who wants them. Although some will argue that drugs are responsible for more than 50% of crime, the facts put forward by the Democrats are impossible to ignore. The government can no longer push the prohibition issue aside for being too complex as the simplest of facts is now crystal clear - prohibition equates to "Uncontrolled Criminal Supply”.


Uncontrolled Criminal Supply vs. Controlled Government Supply to Registered Users

Prohibition is supported by all major political parties* but causes many problems:
Controlled government supply would radically improve the situation, both reducing drug use and reducing the harm inflicted by drugs:

Uncontrolled Supply: Drugs are supplied to anyone including children and the mentally ill.
Controlled Supply: Heroin, cocaine, marijuana and possibly some amphetamines would be supplied to proven existing users. All drugs would be supplied with extensive 'how to quit' information and offers of counselling and rehabilitation.

Uncontrolled Quantity: Criminals are happy to supply as much as you can pay for.
Controlled Quantity: Drugs would be supplied in strictly limited quantities to reduce overdose risks and help ease users off the drugs.

Active Promotion: Use of drugs by new and existing users is actively encouraged by suppliers. There is a very strong incentive to get new users hooked on drugs.
Active Discouragement: Government supply agencies would continually encourage existing users to quit and would not supply new users. There would be no incentive to get new users hooked on drugs as the user could then just get them from the government.

High Availability: Illicit drugs are available throughout Australia including in high security prisons.
Low Availability: Government supply only to registered users. 

Zero Quality Control: Impurities and the concentration of drugs is left to criminal suppliers.
High Quality Control: Manufacture and distribution of all drugs would be highly regulated. There would be no harmful impurities.

High Crime Rates: Users often need to commit crimes to pay for the drugs.
Low Crime Rates: The price of the drugs would be set so that users would not need to commit crimes to pay for the drugs. Crime rates should reduce by up to 50%.

High Corruption: A vast amount of cash is available to corrupt law enforcement personnel and politicians.
Low Corruption: With the collapse of the illicit drug trade there would be much less corruption 

Needle-stick risk: Used syringes present a risk to the general population.
No needle-stick risk: Only safety syringes would be supplied with injectable drugs.

High Health Risks: Communicable diseases such as HIV, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis can thrive in the drug dependent population if it is closed off from regular health services.
Reduced Health Risks: Communicable diseases that exist in today's drug dependent population would be brought under increased control as users’ lives were stabilised.

Making Drugs Harmful: Drugs such as MDMA which are mixed with toxic chemicals are supplied in a hazardous form because they are illegal.
Making Drugs Safer: Drugs such as MDMA could be supplied to registered 18+ users in a clean, low-dose form.

*The Greens Drugs, Substance Abuse and Addiction Policy supports limited decriminalisation of some drug use and 'safe' injecting rooms. However this would have little effect on the illicit drug trade.


The comparison above from the Democrats is succinct yet revealing. When heroin was banned in Australia in 1956, there were 47 registered addicts. With the introduction of prohibition, that has now grown to over 70,000. Regardless of how tough our drug laws are, drug use continues to increase. Even with all the huge drug busts throughout the decades, drug syndicates remain firmly implanted in our society. The Democrats have taken an issue that is conveniently ignored due it’s complexity and given us a simple but realistic overview. The cold, hard truth for our law makers and politicians is that they now have an easy to understand comparison between existing laws based on drug prohibition and the alternatives. 


Recommendations from the Democrats

Controlled government supply would radically improve the situation, both reducing drug use and reducing the harm inflicted by drugs:

Controlled Supply
Heroin, cocaine, marijuana and possibly some amphetamines would be supplied to proven existing users. All drugs would be supplied with extensive 'how to quit' information and offers of counselling and rehabilitation.

Controlled Quantity
Drugs would be supplied in strictly limited quantities to reduce overdose risks and help ease users off the drugs.

Active Discouragement
Government supply agencies would continually encourage existing users to quit and would not supply new users. There would be no incentive to get new users hooked on drugs as the user could then just get them from the government.

Low Availability
Government supply only to registered users. 

High Quality Control
Manufacture and distribution of all drugs would be highly regulated. There would be no harmful impurities.

Low Crime Rates
The price of the drugs would be set so that users would not need to commit crimes to pay for the drugs. Crime rates should reduce by up to 50%.

Low Corruption
With the collapse of the illicit drug trade there would be much less corruption 

No needle-stick risk
Only safety syringes would be supplied with injectable drugs.

Reduced Health Risks
Communicable diseases that exist in today's drug dependent population would be brought under increased control as users’ lives were stabilised.

Making Drugs Safer
Drugs such as MDMA could be supplied to registered 18+ users in a clean, low-dose form.

Implementation
Registration of Users: Users would be able to buy their drugs from the government after proving they were already addicted. Eligibility and other details of the registration and supply process would be developed by a panel of medical and addiction recovery professionals.

Delivery
A public inquiry involving medical and addiction recovery professionals would determine the safest and most cost effective means to source, deliver and administer each type of prescribed drug.

Early Intervention
We support early intervention programs, especially those that target disadvantaged families. 


Fallout from Drug Prohibition
Let’s look at drug prohibition around the world and analyse how successful it really it. Below is a description from Rod Hamilton on how prohibition has failed.

Drugs and humankind have peacefully co-existed for millions of years... since before we are human, as animals too enjoy drugs.

Anyone can learn history to realise that prohibition and violent punishment and discrimination of drug users started when, after thousands of years of peaceful drug taking, violent prohibitionists decided to forcibly stop people from buying, selling and possessing drugs. Of course, the consequences are exactly the same as in all other countries were violent prohibition has been applied: aggravating to unheard extremes a hypothetical evil, justifying the destruction and plundering of countless persons, promoting the ill-gotten wealth of corrupt inquisitors, and creating a prosperous black market for all the forbidden items

Some prohibitionists still have the drivel to insist that all this violence has nothing to do with prohibition, that it is your drug consumption what is causing prohibition enforcers to violently steal and kill thousands of peaceful drug users and producers, while at the same time giving the control of dangerous drugs to violent criminals which are in most cases indistinguishable from prohibition enforcers. This is, obviously, not true, as drug consumption used to take place peacefully long before violent prohibition was forced on us and prohibitionists started violently kidnapping (some) drugs users, sellers and producers of (some) drugs, with the most terrible consequences:

In India, a huge opium production there during the nineteenth century did no give rise to anything that could be called "abuse", and in 1981, not a single case of heroin addiction was reported there. But in 1985, when the county accepted a harsh repressive legislation to comply with international directives, the population began to substitute poppy juice for heroin, and in 1988, the number of Indian heroin addicts, mostly young, was estimated to be one million. Its neighbour Pakistan, with a much smaller population, had double that amount, according to the health minister of the Benazir Bhutto government, whereas a decade earlier the phenomenon had been largely unknown.

In Malaysia, where the death penalty was invariably applied to anyone possessing more than fifteen grams of heroin, the government estimated in 1986 that there were 110,000 heroin addicts, exceptional in a country with a population of ten million. The same thing occurred in Thailand, were the penalty was death or a life sentence but there were about half a million junkies. The principal result of these draconian laws was to create a monopoly of the traffic concentrated in a few hands, well infiltrated into institutions, and excluding competition. Something similar was true in Latin America, where even though legislation drifted into harshness, cocaine production in 1991 was a million kilos, something inconceivable twenty years before, and great land extensions were assigned to poppy cultivation.

In Europe, where illicit drug problems were largely unknown until the seventies, a persecution initially directed against psychedelics ended up being identified as a battle against the Enemy Within, American style, creating conditions favourable for organized bands around the hashish, heroin, and cocaine traffic. Starting at the end of the eighties, this traffic began to include MDMA and other design analogues. Criminality related to drugs had passed from being a negligible chapter to one encompassing three-fourths of all convictions, saturating prisons catastrophically, multiplying by a factor of a thousand the involuntary deaths from fatal intoxication, and filling the streets with sellers and informants, paid with a percentage of what they turned in, whose intervention adulterated the product and at the same time assured its ubiquitous presence. News about substances that "disappeared" or "were reduced" after confiscation suggested that there was an informal tax, destined to support that dense layer of double agents, and that everything confiscated tended to en up, in whole or in part, in the black market.

In the early 19th century, when opium smoking was gaining popularity in China, the Emperor took counsel from his mandarins. One party argued for taxation and regulation, the other for prohibition. The prohibitionists won, with the result that the profitability on opium sales to China rose over 1000%. The consequence was an unparalleled wave of smuggling, the penetration of opium to every corner of China, a rate of addiction never seen before or after, and ultimately the collapse of the Manchu dynasty into civil war, invasion and famine. Had the Emperor chosen the pragmatic choice of regulation and control, the use of opium in China would never have followed the course it did.

Here in Britain we seem determined to repeat the same mistakes. The adoption of strictly prohibitionist policies in the 1980's resulted in an unprecedented explosion in drug use, especially heroin, across Britain. Eventually in the 1990's it was recognised these policies were making the situation worse, and pragmatic harm reduction approaches were developed. Now it seems the Coalition wishes to abandon harm reduction and return to a strict abstinence only prohibitionist position. Its time we woke up and realised that drug prohibition is an abject failure, which affects all members of society, whether you use drugs or not. The answer is not tougher laws, or more police, but a regulated supply of drugs to those who need/want them, combined with highly visible public health education to prevent another generation from experimenting.

Although the majority of the governments generally lined up with the intransigent position favoured by the United States, the example of liberal Holland was embarrassing because of the results if produces. The Dutch actually had the highest rates of illicit drug consumption but the lowest rates of fatal intoxication and related criminality, as well as the least correlation (6 percent) between the use of heroin and AIDS, when by comparison that correlation exceeded 60 percent in France and Spain. Dutch authorities explained their country's privileged position by the population's high awareness (instead of ignorance- of pharmacology), by the absence of counterproductive mythologies or alarmist reactions that distort the real effects of drugs, and by the availability of drugs though noncriminal routes. At the beginning of the nineties, several Swiss cantons adopted this position as well, even testing the free distribution of heroin to anyone who requested it, and making certain zones available for its consumption.

Take a leaf from the Swiss. They give heroin to addicts in government clinics. Young people don’t want to try heroin, as they can visibly see its for sick messed up people queuing at some boring clinic; rather than falling for the fake glamour created by harsh prohibition combined with the latest celebrity drug scandal.

The reasons given by law, social science, medicine, and history against prohibition have not changed in the last forty years, when Szasz, Becker, and Schnur, among others, diagnosed its probable route. Within strictly scientific circles, dissidence was (and continues to be) as unanimous as support for it appears to exist among political and religious leaders.

Drugs have always been around, and they will certainly ever remain. To pretend that both users and non-users will be better protected because some of them are impure, very expensive and sold by criminals (who are, by the way, indistinguishable from undercover police and plain businessmen) is simply ridiculous, and yet more so when the street supply grows year after year.



Consequences of Prohibition
Police Corruption, Glamorisation of Criminality, Government Corruption, Civil Conflict, Drug Trade Funding Terrorists, Increased Illegal Gun Prevalence, Police/Suspect Altercations, Property Crime, Turf Wars, Drug Trade in Schools, Open Air Markets, Police-Community Tensions, Political Instability, Environmental Harm, Deforestation, Meth Labs, Futile Pursuits, Harm Intensification, Disease, Increased Drug Potency, Overdoses, Poisoned Drug Supply, Popularisation of Worse Drugs etc.


If You Support Prohibition...
I found this spiel from Malcolm Kyle(username: malcolmkyle) in the comments section on dozens of websites. It’s an awesome statement although it’s wrongly been attributed to Judge Alfred J. Talley who opposed alcohol prohibition back in 1926. Despite the misrepresentation, it’s still a great analogy of who supports prohibition.

If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history, raising gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you've helped to prevent the sick and dying from obtaining safe and effective medication.

If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you've helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can't find employment due to their felony status.

If you support prohibition you're responsible for the horrific racial disparities which have breed generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans.

If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

If you support prohibition you're promoting a policy which kills our children, endangers our troops, counteracts our foreign policy and reduces much of the developing world to anarchy.

If you support prohibition then you are guilty of turning the federal, state and local governments into a gargantuan organized crime syndicate, interested only in protecting it's own corrupt interests. -- The very acts for which we initially created governments to protect us from, have become institutionalized. Thanks to prohibition, government now provides 'services' at the barrel of a gun.

Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them; the concept of a "Drug-Free Society" is a neurotic fantasy and Prohibition's ills are a product of this psychotic delusion.

Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare; if you support it you must be either ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, corrupt or criminally insane.

If you support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, foreclosed homes, and the complete loss of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.


Drug prohibition has now been recognised as a complete failure by many leading experts, health professionals, police chiefs, social workers, economists and academics. It is no longer acceptable for governments to overlook the carnage caused by prohibition especially any nation that considers itself a modern, advanced society. Resorting to a "War on Drugs" mentality to determine drug policy just doesn’t cut it anymore in this age of science, research and pragmatism. Those in the political spectrum must now enter the 21st century and leave behind the silly rhetoric that seems to dominate so many important issues. Ridiculing their political opposition for recommending robust and evidence based drug policies might win the vote of an ignorant public but science and research will always surface as the clear winner in any rational debate. 

The issue of drugs touches everyone eventually and the Democrats know this. Add to this the fact that global attitudes towards drugs are changing rapidly and the idea of ending prohibition doesn’t seem as daft like when the Greens first introduced their once radical policies. But the Democrats have done something unique this time. They have provided a simple but concise comparison list that shows the current failures besides the workable alternatives. It’s simple, accurate and damning of the current policies that the major parties support so vehemently. Most of all though, it’s embarrassing.


Australian Democrats Victoria Call For An End To Prohibition
December 2010

It’s time for a new tactic in the war on drugs.

After decades of prohibition anyone who wants illicit drugs can still easily get them. Attempted prohibition really means Uncontrolled Criminal Supply. 

We propose a new approach based on Controlled Government Supply. The government would take control of the drug trade by supplying selected, clean, uncontaminated drugs to registered users while providing treatment programs to get the registered users off the drugs forever.

As a part of this approach Australia would join the list of countries using Prescribed Heroin. They are: Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Canada (trials) and Belgium (trials).

Prohibition has clearly failed and yet it is still supported by all major Australian political parties*. Drugs are readily available, even in high security prisons, and supplied to anyone including children and the mentally ill. There is a very strong incentive for suppliers to get new users hooked on drugs and they are happy to sell as much as users can pay for. 

Users often need to commit crimes to support their addiction. In fact, according to the government's recent National Drug Strategy study, almost half of all crime is caused by alcohol and illicit drug use. Also, a vast amount of cash is available to corrupt law enforcement personnel and politicians. 

Zero quality control means that the level of impurities and the concentration of drugs is left to criminal suppliers. Used syringes present a danger to the general population and for users there is a high risk of contracting communicable diseases. Diseases such as HIV, Tuberculosis and Hepatitis thrive in the drug dependent population because the stigma and illegality attached to drug addiction tend to close affected people off from regular health services. 

Controlled government supply would reduce drug use and minimise the harm inflicted by drugs. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana and possibly some amphetamines would be supplied to proven existing users. All drugs would be supplied with extensive 'how to quit' information and offers of counselling and rehabilitation.

Drugs would be supplied in strictly limited quantities to reduce overdose risks and help ease users off the drugs. Government supply agencies would continually encourage existing users to quit and would not supply new users. Illicit suppliers would have no incentive to get new users hooked because the user could then just get their drugs from the government. 

Manufacture and distribution of all drugs would be highly regulated. There would be no harmful impurities. The price would be set so that users would not need to resort to crime. Crime rates should reduce by up to 50%. With the collapse of the illicit drug trade there would be much less corruption. There would be no needle-stick risk because only safety syringes would be supplied with injectable drugs. Communicable diseases that exist in today's drug dependent population would be brought under increased control as users’ lives were stabilised. 

Users would be able to obtain their drugs from the government after proving they were already addicted. Eligibility and other details of the registration and supply process would be developed by a panel of medical and addiction recovery professionals.

A public inquiry involving medical and addiction recovery professionals would determine the safest and most cost effective means to source, deliver and administer each type of prescribed drug.


Related Articles

Thursday 6 January 2011

Drug Dealers Have to Live Somewhere

What should the Office of Housing do when someone is convicted of low level drug dealing? This seems to be the hot issue at the moment. You may have heard recently that due to a technicality, VCAT have overturned an eviction notice for “TK” who was charged with selling heroin on public housing property. Apparently, there is a loophole that clears “TK” because the incident did not occur in his flat but on common ground.

This has sparked an outrage from hundreds of readers and listeners of various media outlets. Leading the pack of course is News Ltd’s HeraldSun who have published at least four articles about the issue in 24 hours. Check out these headlines: Heroin Den Makes Joke Of Legislation and Hot Topic: Heroin Den Shame

A ludicrous technicality has allowed a convicted heroin dealer to stay in his apartment in a public housing estate.
[…]
A needy family will have to wait for the next vacancy while the legislation is made to look a laughing stock.
--Herald Sun Editorial: Heroin Den Makes Joke Of Legislation

Hot on the heels of the HeraldSun was 3AW and their crack announcer, Nick MaCallum. On his show, Nick interviewed Housing Minister, Wendy Lovell who was just as outraged as the announcer. The happy couple chatted intently about disgraceful drug dealers, the appalling decision by VCAT and who deserves public housing.

It’s not acceptable that people who are in public housing abuse the system. We want to see good families housed in our properties.
[…]
Clearly, Victorian taxpayers have a right to expect that there’s a mutual obligation if the taxpayer subsidises housing for people then there’s a mutual obligation for those people to treat that housing with respect and to act in a way that we find acceptable in our society.
-- Wendy Lovell: Victorian Housing Minister (3AW)

Eventually, an underlying theme appeared when a perspicacious Nick probed the Housing Minister about her views on heroin dealers. Wendy Lovell admitted it was not part of her portfolio but coughed up an opinion anyway.

Nick MaCallum: On the broader issues here. I know they don’t fall into your portfolio but I just want to get your gut reaction to this. First of all, admitted 3 times to trafficking in heroin. Are you frustrated that he didn’t go to jail in the first place. 

Wendy Lovell:  Well that’s not for me to comment on. That’s outside my portfolio area but what I can say Nick is that I have  Zero Tolerance with drug dealing and I will be looking to make sure that we toughen up every law possible to ensure that this activity is not taking place on Office of Housing properties.
--3AW

But this whole affair is not really about VCAT or some legal loophole. It’s about the public’s attitude towards drug users. Especially those who sell drugs. 

The fact is, most small time heroin dealers are addicts who desperately need money to fund their addiction. But this act of selling drugs is abhorrent to most people who’s views have been clouded by years of anti-drug rhetoric. Mostly, these small time dealers or user/dealers keep to themselves and operate within a tiny circle of other users or addicts. We tend to overlook the fact that selling drugs keeps them from committing crimes which would involve hurting others. 

Why do so many people want to dig out these user/dealers and create an even worse scenario? What is the logic behind this insatiable need to stop an activity that doesn’t affect them? It doesn’t make sense to end their income stream when the alternative involves committing crimes against innocent victims. The question we need to ask is why small time drug dealing warrants more disdain than robberies, theft and hold ups?

If they commit a crime anywhere, whether it be on the property or not, surely they should lose their right to public housing.
[…]
Why wasn’t he sent to jail for 3 times trafficking.
--Nick MaCallum: 3AW Announcer

The response from the Housing Minister, Wendy Lovell and the media missed a vital point in regards to the issue of public housing for drug addicts/users/dealers … these people have to live somewhere. Simply moving the problem around has become the standard course of action regarding drug issues. The infamous balloon effect should be an easy concept but the number of government officials and policy makers who fail to grasp this notion is just incredible. If “TK” was kicked out, I wonder what the harsh critics would say if he moved in next door to them?

It is unacceptable for everyone - the taxpayers who are subsidising public housing and those waiting for public housing - to see people in public housing abusing the system. It is not acceptable for people being forced to live next door to drug dealers.
-- Wendy Lovell: Victorian Housing Minister

Using the excuse that over 41,000 families are waiting for public housing is just a excuse to direct anger at a public enemy - druggies. These people are not rich but border on the edge of poverty. Many of them suffer depression or some mental health disorder and live a daily nightmare we can’t even imagine. They need accommodation just as much as anyone else. If public housing was only for “good families”, as Wendy Lovell said, the high rises would be nearly empty.

As usual, the News Ltd readers flocked to the comments section, attracted by the opportunity to slam those filthy junkies. And, as usual, we saw how screwed up some people really are.

123!:
Good lord. Can someone just take out the tool and give the flat to a much needy family? Better still, HOW ABOUT YOU OD AND GO AWAY you filth.

Jackie of Victoria:
What an a$$hole he deserves to be living on the streets - the courts need to be examined for their senseless judgements.

Glenn of Melbourne:
I'm sick to death hearing that Drug Dependance is a disease. Clearly, it starts as a Lifestyle choice before it becomes an addiction. The easiest way to handle this, is to build more jails, make them less friendly to be in (no internet, tv etc..), make the sentences longer with no time off for good behaviour and lock them away. Eventually they may see the light.

teepee:
Wot a joke! socialist do-gooders helping drug dealers. Oh and ahhhh, even if he is jailed, DHS keep the flat for him for when he gets out as I understand it.
Comment 9 of 199

Very angry of St Albans:
…Does this make anyone else want to vomit with rage or is it just me

Tom Payne:
…Lock the freak up

BILL:
This country is gonna be the third world pits in less than 20 years, and it's because we try to be the do-gooder, fair legal system, help everyone, CRAP! Build more jails, Get rid of nice-as-pie judges, Lock up criminals, Close down Centrelink forever, and this country will be beautiful again!

Ike of Melbourne:
Breaching this unnamed drug dealer's Rights? ?!! What about the safety concerns for families and children living nearby in other Units...while some of these drug dealing transactions were going on? Drug transactions do not always go according to plan, or on the most social and friendliest of terms , do they? It is a fair thing to consider that neighbors were placed in some danger, by the types that would be attracted into the same vicinity, to negotiate and buy. Perhaps, ask some of those V.C.A.T members whether they would be also willing to tolerate drug dealers next door, to their homes. The legal hick-up though, not to oust the dealer under Victorian Government 'Human Rights' Laws...goes straight back to legislation by the previous Labor Party Victorian Government. Don't you JUST love the Labor Party ....for all their stupid ideas, which finished up protecting Melbourne's criminals ?

Pedro in the Marsh:
Hooray for VCAT, I will chuck in my job and become a drug dealing housing commission resident, get a job driving a taxi where I can happily watch porno movies and breach traffic laws safe in the knowledge I will be protected by VCAT.... Get real. Who are you people. Offenders such as these should be punished, the community demands that this be so.

Jo of vic:
show us the name, face, ethnicity of this loser.. why are we protecting the thugs? Is he one of the 'refugees'? How did he get here?

typical herald sun reader of the western suburbs:
THIS IS ALL BRUMBYS BL**DY FAULT FOR GOIN SOFT ON BL**DY DRUGGIE SCUMBAGS!!!THEYRE EVERYWHERE IN MY ESTATE!!! **shakes fist at high rise commission flats**

chris of kurunjang:
Why is this piece of scum not in jail? and when will any Govt put into place proper laws that will fix this and other similar situations so that we can reclaim this state from the filth dealing drugs. dealers caught and convicted should automatically go to jail for a minimum of 20years.

Nik of Travencore:
Fantastic!!!! Now that this person is still able to maintain his residency, I will have to keep an additional eye on all my property. Police have convicted him as a drug dealer ...... so im sure his current job role will soon change from "dealer" to "stealer". How else will he maintain his current drug habit.
Comment 179 of 199

And out of nearly 200 comments, these were the only sensible statements.

Andy of Sunshine:
This poor fellow has a drug problem. He is attending to the financial requirements of that by selling drugs to willing buyers. Would you rather he broke into your house and stole your laptop? This is not a drug kingpin we are talking about here. Better access to a wider range of treatment options (including prescription heroin) would go a long way to fixing issues like this. And of course, we could do a lot better with our welfare system - currently we seem hell-bent on creating and maintaining a permanent underclass who are virtually shut out of "respectable" society.

Pat of Melbourne:
He is selling heroin to support his own addiction. He had $400 in crime proceeds, this is a non-story. What will throwing him on the streets acheive? The poor guy probably has a horrible addiction and illness. I think the bigger isssue is the fact that the cops can never find any of the main players, yet they think they have hit the jackpot when they arrest a pointless guy like this.

Monday 3 January 2011

Drug Law Reform for Middle East But Not Australia

Of all the regions in the world, the Middle East is the most unlikely to consider drug law reform. But drug law reform is an unpredictable process and it can rear it’s head in the most unexpected places.

Most of the countries with tough drug laws tend to have large a religious population with Islamic countries leading the way. Although The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is more liberal than surrounding countries, it is still primarily run by Islamic rules including the co-existence of Sharia law with a more modern civil law jurisdiction. But unlike many of it’s neighbours, the UAE tolerates alcohol and has committed to a robust human rights agenda. Other religions apart from Islam are also tolerated giving the country a harmonious multicultural setting with little public conflict between the various faiths.

Although the UAE may be open to western influences, it is still a far cry from highly democratic countries like Australia, the US and the UK. This makes the decision to investigate drug law reforms - that basically decriminalise drugs - even more significant. 

A drug addict is a sick person and he should be treated as such
-Brigadier General Maktoum al Sharifi: Head of Abu Dhabi Capital Police

You have to wonder why the UAE, who like surrounding nations have severe penalties for drug related crimes, would even consider these new reforms. Especially when other open, fully democratic and secular countries like Australia, remain fixated on useless, failed and cruel drug polices, dreamed up many decades ago.

Current drug laws in the UAE are harsh and counterproductive and there is a mandatory four year prison term for anyone found to have a connection with illicit drugs. But many officials in the UAE agree that the current laws are flawed. The Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court of First Instance, Saeed Abdul Baseer, said that he would prefer to send patients to rehabilitation centres or give them lesser sentences, but that he was restricted by the law. 

I would be very happy to give them lesser sentence or send them to rehabilitation centres. It is not an easy thing to sentence a young offender to four years in prison. But I have to follow the law.
--Saeed Abdul Baseer: Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court.

Hopefully, drug law reform will happen in the near future and serve as a reminder to other governments that rubber stamping failed drug policies, year after year, not only cause more problems than it fixes but is pointless and inhumane. There are alternatives to punitive drug laws which are based on evidence and research and it is the role of elected governments to implement these policies if it’s beneficial to their constituents. Unfortunately, politics is a fickle game with many players more focussed on winning the popularity prize instead of maintaining a fair, civil society for the benefit of all.

When countries like the UAE - that traditionally support Zero Tolerance drug policies - start contemplating the removal of strict drug laws because they are flawed and inhumane, you know that global attitudes are changing. But when the proposed changes are backed up with evidence and research, it should put enormous pressure on other countries to follow suit especially considering the massive damage caused every day by existing laws. 

Those still calling out for tougher drug laws really need to be questioned about their motives. Locally, we are witnessing a surge in politicians who are implementing even more draconian drug laws without sufficient scrutiny from opposition political parties and the media. But what is most disturbing about this current push for tougher drug laws are the reasons used by our elected politicians to support their case. To put it bluntly, they are mostly using misinformation, popular myths and outright lies in their attempts to fool the public. Where’s the scrutiny and the demands to reveal their source of information? Why isn’t the media asking them to explain why their claims are contradictory to the latest research and evidence? The fact is that most claims by politicians who are pushing for tougher drug laws are wrong and this helps to keep the public misguided about effective solutions. Previous propaganda masters like Chris Pyne, John Howard, Bronwyn Bishop etc. are being joined by Mike Rann, Colin Barnett and Ted Ballieu as part of a deceitful, agenda driven group who are prepared to mislead the public about drugs. It’s incredibly frustrating to hear elected officials like Michael Mischin, Christian Porter, John Brumby, Michael Atkinson, Steve Fielding, Peter Debnam, Nicola Roxon, Andrew Stoner, Mary Wooldridge, Peter Wellington, Mark McArdle, Michael Wright etc. make unsubstantiated claims when it would only take 15 minutes on the internet to find the facts. No other issue has ever attracted so many people who are willing to publicly lie even though the truth is just a few clicks away via Google. It may have worked before the advent of the internet but the ability to check facts almost instantly, should pressure politicians to substantiate their claims before they are exposed as frauds. If only other politicians and the media would be brave enough to expose them.


Overhaul Of UAE Drug Laws Considered
Haneen Dajani and Hassan Hassan (Courts and Justice Reporter)
Jan 2011

ABU DHABI // An overhaul of the nation’s drug laws could mean offenders no longer face prison sentences.

Anti-drugs officials told The National that Sheikh Saif bin Zayed, the Minister of Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, had ordered all concerned authorities to evaluate current anti-narcotics laws and suggest reforms.

Generally, the overhaul will consider new methods to punish or treat convicts, especially repeat offenders, such as social and community services.

Brig Gen Maktoum al Sharifi, the head of Abu Dhabi Capital Police, welcomed the idea of reforms, saying the law should not consider a drug offender a criminal, as it currently does.

“A drug addict is a sick person and he should be treated as such,” Brig Gen al Sharifi said. “Alternative punishment would be more effective. A drug offender could be just an addict, not a criminal, but after locking him up for years he could come out involved in crimes such as stealing, drug dealing, et cetera.”

Alternative punishments police have proposed include community service, such as cleaning the streets, schools or voluntary work.

Major reforms proposed by rehabilitation centres include allowing family members to turn in drug offenders to avoid prosecution. Currently, only if abusers themselves seek rehabilitation will they avoid going to jail.

“Addicts would be under the influence of drugs and would not think clearly, so those around them should be allowed to help them,” said Dr Hamad al Ghafiri, the general director of the National Rehabilitation Centre (NRC) in Abu Dhabi. “We want to encourage people to seek treatment, so we should assure them that they will not face prison for doing so.”

Another major reform, Dr al Ghafiri said, would be the creation of a data-tracking system that would link clinics across the nation to avoid prescription “shopping”. He said many patients had used old prescriptions for addiction-treatment medicines provided by the NRC to obtain extra doses by visiting different clinics across the country. Abu Dhabi, he said, had already linked its clinics and pharmacies.

Experts said drug offenders were usually treated as criminals rather than victims or even patients.

Saeed Abdul Baseer, the Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court of First Instance, said that he would prefer to send patients to rehabilitation centres or give them lesser sentences, but that he was restricted by the law. The minimum sentence for drug crimes is four years – a regulation especially punitive to expatriates who cannot be admitted to rehabilitation centres.

“I would be very happy to give them lesser sentence or send them to rehabilitation centres,” the chief justice said. “It is not an easy thing to sentence a young offender to four years in prison. But I have to follow the law.” 
Faiza Moussa, a lawyer who deals with drug cases, said jail sentences were not an effective deterrent.

“Drug addiction is more of a psychological problem,” Mrs Moussa said. “I dealt with defendants who lapsed too many times. They go to prison and then they are released, they would have been properly coached or rehabilitated.”

She suggested toxins should be removed from the body of drug offenders before considering any punishment. After removing toxins, she said, the offender should be referred to a specialist, who would try to turn them away from lapsing back into drug use. She also suggested jails should have workshops to train inmates on how to be a productive member of society after leaving prison.

“Most of drug addicts are either unemployed, uneducated or with social problems,” she said. “If they teach him a certain profession to start a business after they leave prison, I think most of them would not return to drugs.” 


Related Articles: