Rudd Falls Into Line / Luck Of The Draw

KEVIN RUDD had a chance to continue the success of his current world trip and impress NATO with some fresh ideas on Afghanistan. He could have at least given his support to some alternative plans being suggested by several NATO members. He could have ... but he didn't.

Is Kevin Rudd just another US stooge like John Howard and taking the same familiar path?  

When Kevin Rudd took office last November, there was some optimisism from drug policy reformists. After 11 years of ignorance and Howards curtailing to the US conservative forces, there was some hope that Australia would join other countries in redefining a more pragmatic drug policy. The statement from Rudd that futures policies would be “evidence based” gave hope that finally facts would win over political, moral and religious rhetoric.

Except for some off handed comments that Labor were “tough on drugs”, there has been very little indication about which path Rudd will take. That was until his recent overseas trip. Rudd has just spent time in the US to discuss our diplomatic ties and it looks like the spin doctors had a field day with him.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Bucharest, Rudd has made his priority the eradication of Afghanistan's opium fields including detailed plans on how to do it. The influence from the US was obvious and the European leaders in NATO were not impressed with the tired old agenda being thrown at them. The European leaders were expecting more from our new PM considering they had made their feelings clear about Howard’s constant mirroring of US policy. The call for more troops was also seen as another US ploy and again reminiscent of the Howard years. Australia has only 1000 troops in Afghanistan and is often criticised by the Europeans for pushing the US agenda without fully committing more troops themselves.

Crop eradication has never met expectations with Colombia being the obvious benchmark. Crop spraying has had very little success and Colombian cocaine has actually increased in production. The only visible results is a country now being run with a paramilitary style police force murdering locals on the street and thousands of innocent farmers losing their legitimate crops to US led cocaine eradication programs.

In Afghanistan, the US has already poured in $1.2 billion into a program of slashing the poppy harvest worth only $1 billion. Opium production went up 30%. The main outcome was increasing hatred of the west from farmers who had their livelihood taken away. The US is now trying to force the Afghanistan government into arial spraying and Rudd is seen as a keen US supporter much like Howard was. The US has appointed former Colombian ambassador, William Wood as it’s ambassador in Kabul. Wood is commonly known as "Chemical Bill" in Washington for his introduction of the Colombian chemical eradication program. You know, the program that didn’t work.

The US could have bought the opium from the farmers and burnt it but it would be “sending the wrong message”. Such is the stupidity of the “War on Drugs”. The other plan to turn Afghanistan’s farmers onto alternative crops has been tried and failed several times. This was Rudd’s sugestion to deal with the locals and the loss of their primary income. It was dismissed quickly by nonchalant NATO officials.

If this is an example of the alternative to Howard’s drug strategy then we are in for a long three years. Australia has spent decades building up Harm Minimisation and was considered a leader worldwide until Howard rode the wave of US conservatism and tried to replace it with a US style zero tolerance policy. Rudd has the chance to now catch up and once again show that facts, research and humane government policies will put us on the map far more than kissing US butt ever will.

The Luck Of The Draw

Mr. David Paterson, newly elevated Governor of NY, recently acknowledged that he used cocaine and marijuana in his younger years. Had he been unlucky enough back then to get busted for possession of a single joint, or a trace amount of coke, he'd probably be in jail now, or trying to overcome a "criminal record" and find a job, or perhaps dead. Instead, because he had the good fortune not to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he is responsible for governing NY State - and however one judges his likelihood of governing well, no one has suggested for a moment that he's unqualified in the light of his acknowledgment. 

Justice should not hinge on luck. Hopefully, the new governor will reconsider our drug policies in light of his own experience. He has long advocated changing the Draconian Rockefeller Law; now he should push for an even more radical change in how we approach drug use in our state and nation. If any political leader can empathize with the real victims of the drug war, he can!

-RG Newman MD, Opiate Addiction. 

The Surge is Working...

The Surge is Working ... The next heroin surge is on it's way. An article on the ABC website says so, so it must be. Experts warn that heroin is becoming more available in Australia and users report it to be more potent. (Australian Customs ) Dr Robert Ali from Drug and Alcohol Services SA said "Historically most of the heroin imported to Australia has come from the Golden Triangle, predominantly out of Burma. But it appears by the description of the heroin being used that there's Afghanistan heroin finding its way into Australia as well." -ABC Online I started using heroin during the last big surge. It was so prevalent, they were selling it on the streets in daylight. No need to phone ahead or no need to know someone special, just turn up at one of several places and there they were. Footscray in Melbourne was hot and you could walk through a certain car park and take your pick of dealer. The main street in Springvale was like a heroin open air market. I once counted over 50 dealers on one stroll up the main street. Melbourne's most famous place though was Russell St. I used to be able to drive into the city, park illegally, score and be back at work with 30 minutes ... quicker than buying lunch. Cabramatta train station in Sydney was the best though. Young Asian boys would fight over who was going to be your dealer today ... literary. Ahhh, the good ol' days. Unless they want this again, they better come up with some better policies. I would hate to see the numbers of young, first time users rise to the levels of the last surge. I know that will just do what they did last time. Too many dealers in one spot gets the shop keepers angry and they alert the police and media. It becomes well known and draws in an even bigger crowd. Eventually they hit that spot and the local papers congratulate them for being 'tough on drugs' and everyone cheers. The Daily Telegraph or the Hun declare the police are fighting a national epidemic. The feeling they can beat this scourge is strong but as they are congratulating each other, the market is on the move. The demand hasn't changed one bit and there are still thousands of hungry addicts waiting for a hit. There is an unlimited supply of dealers waiting to fill the tiny holes left by the police action and the lure of easy money is the one thing the police didn't remove. It starts all over again ... just around the corner.

Does the US Prefer Terrorism to Treating Addicts?

I was reading Tim Dunlop's Blogocracy and their was a pointer to a story about Iraqi farmers putting in opium poppy fields. Of course I had to add my comment:

The US sure are good at war - Vietnam war, Afghan war, Iraqi war, war on terror and my fav ... the war on drugs.

The only reason these opium poppies have a value is because of drug prohibition that is so strongly enforced by the US via the 'War on Drugs'. An estimated $400 billion is made by drug criminals each year. Put that in prospective - 8% of world trade is illicit drugs and over the next 10 years, 4 trillion dollars will be made by organised crime illegally selling drugs. A lot of money available to be used by terrorists if so pursued.

I wonder if the brains trust in Washington can get past their moral convictions and weigh up whether treating drugs addicts is more important than terrorism. The problem and the solution is simple. Give heroin addicts prescription heroin and organised crime selling heroin will go out of business. No more opium fields, no more opium drug lords, no more sqillions of dollars available for terrorists. What really amazes me is that other countries do it now yet it's the US who keep these drugs lords in business. Canada, England, Switzerland, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany give their long term addicts prescription heroin. Even Iran has taken on board help from the Swiss and might be prescribing heroin as a treatment. Results for addicts health and social integration has been stunning and drug related crime has dropped significantly. Also, dealers are losing their main cliental to prescription heroin so they stop supplying it ... Result: very few new users and no profits for drug lords. So what's the choice ... Treatment or Terrorism?

The idea that funding for terrorism from opium can be slowed or even halted must be tempting? Yet why do they stick to their unrealistic drug policies so tightly but demand the world follow their lead on fighting terrorism ... at any cost. The US have a reputation for avoiding the root a problem and use words like 'democracy', 'freedom' and 'liberty' to justify their often controversial actions.

The lesson learnt from Afghanistan poppy fields and the attempted annihilation of cocaine plantations in Latin America is that it can't be stopped. No amount of money or intervention will do it. Crops just move from one place to the next. Turning these poppy fields in Iraq & Afghanistan into a legitimate business for the worlds addicts would create economic growth for the farmers and related industries. It would earn tax revenue and help stabilise the area with a unique product that doesn't have a huge value on the black market. That would win more hearts & minds for the US than burning down their farms, that I am sure of. 

The 'War on Drugs' is hindering the 'War on Terror'. The question is, which is the more important?.