Did They Really Say That? Part 3 - The Religious Right

This is the third and final part in the series that puts the spotlight on some of the most remarkable comments aimed at brutalising drug policy in Australia.

Drug addiction is a sin
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Maybe we need to clear up the two arguments from religious groups. The first argument is that religion is meant to be compassionate and based on loving your fellow human regardless of their actions. Ideals like “love thy neighbour”, “turn the other cheek” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are the core of a better world. The teachings of Jesus are mostly taken into account as practical methods for living a more Christian life. To these Christians, drug addicts need help via practical and compassionate treatment that maintain their dignity as people and to keep them safe. They are mostly supporters of harm minimisation and consider the problem a medical issue.

At the other end is the religious right who have reshaped Christianity to suit the modern evangelist or moral crusader. The focus is self improvement, conservative ideology and a return to the 1950s style, nuclear family. There is no room for druggies, gays and liberals. This is a new era of born again Christians who are active in politics, social commentary and government lobbying. In their quest to make the world more Christian like, religious fundamentals like humility and benevolence are overlooked. Fundraisers for the poor are replaced with large venue religotainment where you can experience on stage miracles like faith healing, participate in pray-a-longs for a better life and enjoy words of wisdom. The donation plate is passed around constantly and sales of DVDs, books etc. raise plenty of money for the church involved but how much of it goes to charitable purposes is debatable. Flamboyant and wealthy pastors are not questioned about amassing small fortunes or inciting hatred against non Christians but are looked up to as the strong, warriors of God. Muslims are evil and atheists are soulless. Programs for helping the community are replaced with self improvement classes for managing your money or losing weight and it is no longer necessary to keep your faith private. These Christians have joined the culture wars and they’re in it to win. In contrast to the first mentioned Christians, drug addicts need discipline and tough love. To help with their obdurate cause, they embrace a Zero Tolerance policy with tough police action. In their quest for a drug free world, abstinence is king and Harm Minimisation perverts the weak. Just like the Catholic Church’s view on condoms, adhering to their interpreted message from God is more important than actually saving lives.

"Christ came to make people whole, yet the total abstinence message is the truth that some Christians do not want to hear!"
-Graeme Rule. Director - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

The onset of evangelism in Australia has seen a new breed of political active Christians in the area of illicit drugs. Like all extremists, the religious right make some extraordinary comments combining the rejection of medical knowledge, cherry picked junk science, religion and moral panic. This gives them enormous scope to basically say what they want under the cover of religion and morality.

By offering addicts clean syringes, injecting rooms and alternative legal drugs, which maintain self centered and destructive behaviors for addicts, is part of the current nihilistic and consumer culture, which is opposed to Christian principles.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

Harm Minimisation
The line between Christian principles and conservative values are becoming increasingly blurred and we are seeing a cosy relationship between the religious right, politicians and the MSM. The big loser is society and the people they are suppose to be helping. The current policy of Harm Minimisation is projected by the religious right as unchristian, immoral and a failure although it is heralded by the experts as the best solution we currently have. Incidentally, Harm Minimisation is not properly implemented yet and is still biased towards law and order. Disapproval of Harm Minimisation means that science, reality and facts are the enemies of the religious right. For example, a quote from evangelist, Bill Mulleunberg states that Harm Prevention is the only proven drug policy. This is scientifically wrong, unworkable in reality and not a fact but a lie.

The question is, how many more people have to die before we reject the foolishness of these harm minimisation advocates, and their mistaken belief that illicit drug use is just a health issue, and not also a criminal justice issue?
Instead of seeking harm prevention - the only proven drug policy - and a zero tolerance approach to drug use, they recklessly continue pushing the line that people will always take drugs, so we must try to make it “safer” when they do. This is not only a counsel of surrender, but it is costing people their lives.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

In an attempt to discredit Harm Minimisation, there have been some cracker comments that just completely ignore the facts. By cherry picking research, they can produce “sound byte” statements that might be effective in the media but are only disingenuous attempts to trick the public.

It is clear that stricter laws reduce drug experimentation
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

While much of the western world is entrenched in basic Harm Minimisation programs, other countries such as Sweden and the US are used as examples of where Zero Tolerance is working. The problem is that it’s not true. The US has more people in jail than any other country, spends $69 billion per year addressing their problem yet has the highest drug use rate on the planet. You wouldn’t think this is true considering some of the bizarre statements from the religious right.

Given that the US is making better headway than Australia, in both binge drinking and illicit drug use among its young people, we should be looking more closely at what is working there
-Jo Baxter. Executive Officer - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

I always thought that lying was considered a sin and not part of Christian values but the religious right include it in their arsenal of propaganda weapons to fight Harm Minimisation.

Free needle programs have not stopped the spread of deadly, incurable disease. Hepatitis C infection is soaring among Australian drug users. Free needles encourage more drug use, just as free injecting rooms would do. Young people assume that heroin cannot be such a dangerous drug if State governments distribute free needles to inject it, provide legal injecting rooms and support heroin trials to supply free heroin to addicts.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

The lengths they go to trying to discredit Harm Minimisation is incredible. Ex magistrate and DFA member, Craig Thompson is often seen as the credible face of Drug Free Australia (DFA) but if you read what he says carefully, you might be fooled into thinking it’s actually satire laced with juicy conspiracy theories.

Needles to addicts, marijuana as medicine, industrial hemp, responsible drug use education, and softening drug law enforcement are "harm reduction” policies.  Isn't "harm reduction" really the old failed "responsible use" policy that got us into all this trouble in the first place?   It does not seek to "prevent" harm, or to "cure" harm.  It seeks to "reduce" harm – to the user and dealer – at the expense of society.
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

or

What is the force behind "harm reduction?" . . .   Could it be power, politics and money?
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

and

The new "harm minimisation" doctrine claims that drug abstinence is not possible and "safe use" is the way to go.
-Festival of Light article

The main targets for opposing Harm Minimisation strategies are needle exchanges and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). Clearly a success, there has been many attempts to find a loophole for raising controversy. My favourite is from Gary Christian:

High overdose rates at the centre were due to drug users experimenting with higher doses, knowing nurses would be on hand to help them
-Gary Christian. Honorary Secretary - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

I laughed for about an hour when I first read this. Apparently an MSIC client admitted he did this but believe me when I tell you, overdosing is not fun. This is the single most absurd theory I have ever heard. It did though bring to mind, our friends, The Festival of Light who made this comment about Gays some years back.

Ironically, in spite of these costly programs, the success of the very expensive multi-drug treatment for AIDS has weakened the motivation of homosexual men to practise "safe" sex.
-Festival of Light

Maybe not as exact as Gary’s claim but just as delightful was this from DACA inc.

Injecting rooms will allow evil to flourish and prosper as addicts buy drugs for use in the injecting rooms.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

DACA inc. (not a government council at all but a private corporation) also answered the biggest question, are drugs evil?

Drugs are evil
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

David Noffs, son of the late Rev Ted Noffs who founded the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, and developer of drug prevention programs in Australia and overseas, said this:

This (harm minimisation) approach to the drug problem became federal and state policy about 15 years ago. It (claims) drug use is inevitable and should somehow be managed. Is it any wonder that drug use has escalated among young people in Australia to the point where it is four times that of the US (and over five times that of Sweden)? In the Netherlands, a noted harm minimisation country, the drug problem is out of control. Why is it then that Australia persists with a drug policy that is a public health disaster? ...It is time to pull the plug!
-David Noffs, President Life Education Centers International, Founding President Drug Watch International

Somewhat confused about his statistics? You should be. The drug problem in the Netherlands is out of control? Drug use amongst the young in Australia is four times that of the US? - Pffft. These statements are simply lies which must raise concerns about the ethics of these so called "Christians". It is standard procedure to attack the Netherlands because of their cannabis cafes and liberal laws on prostitution. The US has lied about the Netherlands for years including one US Drug Czar saying “you can't walk down the street in Amsterdam without tripping over junkies." The most publicised lie was the statistical bungle by Clinton’s Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey who pointed out the Dutch had a much higher murder rate because of liberal drug policies. Of course he was wrong as McCaffrey had included attempted murders in the Dutch results which meant that the US had a 400% higher murder rate per capita.

The city of Amsterdam is awash with drugs and crime. Indeed, drug-related crime is four times the rate of the US. You can’t walk down a street of central Amsterdam without being accosted by drug pushers and addicts. I lost count of how many times our push bikes were stolen by the druggies to help support their habits. I don’t want that cesspool of crime, drugs and violence to be replicated here.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

The fact is, the Netherlands rate of cannabis use is fairly much in line with neighbouring European countries except in the younger age groups where it is lower. It is also much lower than Australia, the UK and the US. Hard drug use is lower than the European average and significantly lower than Australia, the UK and the US. Recent reports that the Dutch are reversing their pragmatic approach to cannabis use have sent the anti-drug zealots into a frenzy. The “coffee houses” faced a few issues with the banning of tobacco smoking indoors, border towns attracting “drug tourists” from neighbouring countries and some premises being too close to schools. The final result though, is that not much has happened at all. The truth has never stopped the religious right before from creating fanciful stories.

In Holland, where marijuana is openly sold in “coffee houses,” drug addiction has become a massive problem - so much so that Dutch authorities are now having a rethink. They are now clamping down on a problem which is getting out of control. Acknowledging that drug-related offences and links with organised crime are on the rise, the Dutch Government will drastically cut the amount of cannabis that can be sold in the coffee houses, and more jail cells will be built.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and this

Is it a fact that Holland has one of the highest rates of marijuana use in the world because of its relaxed drug laws?
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

To the religious right, Harm Minimisation is not just about drugs but an undesirable lifestyle. The links between moral decay, crime, homosexuals, HIV/AIDS, broken families and drugs is a common theme for the religious right and they never miss an opportunity to tie in these evils together. For them, it’s simply a moral issue.

Obituary statistics reveal that the homosexual lifestyle is violence and accident prone. This may be partly a result of the high incidence of drug abuse. A survey of Australian male homosexuals published by the National Centre in HIV Social Research in 1998, found that "recreational drug use is high among homosexually active men by comparison with the general population. Particular drugs, especially the so-called `party drugs', are used by a sizable percentage of homosexually active men
-Homosexual parenting - the effect on children by Mrs Roslyn Phillips, BSc, DipEd and Dr David Phillips, BSc, PhD, ThA. (Australian Festival of Light )

and

At bottom, the drug problem is not so much a legal problem as a moral and cultural problem. To throw up our hands and give up our young people to the scourge of drugs is a sign of moral irresponsibility.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

It was then that I realised Peter was sneaking rock CDs into our home. They were Pantera, Metallica, 2PAC, Cyprus Hill, Korn, Eminem and many more - all with extremely violent lyrics. They promoted marijuana and other drug use, suicide, murder, racial hatred and violence, rape and rebellion against authority. Peter would hide the CDs in his bedroom. I found his hiding place, and confiscated them. I made him give them back to his mates.
-Festival of Light article - When love is not enough

The laughable logic often used by the religious right is similar to primary school standards. A prime example is the over zealous, Bill Mulleunberg who is often seen using comparisons that is similar to comparing apples with rotary engines.

They want to supply heroin to addicts. That’s about as helpful as supplying whiskey to alcoholics. This will simply create life-long addicts. We don’t want to help these people. We want to keep them strung out for life. Such a policy is morally bankrupt and socially disastrous.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Incredible! To see how irresponsible and inane such comments are, just substitute the word rape or murder for the phrase psychoactive substances. People will always rape (or run red lights, or avoid paying taxes, etc.). It is foolish to think we can fully eradicate the problem. So let’s try to minimise the whole problem. This is putting up the white flag of surrender, and condemning many to an early grave.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Nor should we abandon moral principles simply because in an imperfect world not everyone lives up to such ideals. It would be great to pass a law that banished all murder or alcohol-related road deaths. This we cannot do. But we nonetheless pass laws that deter murder and drink driving by making them illegal. To argue that such laws be abolished because they are frequently violated is foolish in the extreme.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

In the article Wodak is reported to have said that the legalised product would come in packets that “warn against its effects”. Hey, thanks for that. And when we sell the Uzis and other firearms, we will also have the appropriate warnings attached as well. How thoughtful. And when the child porn mags are freely available in the POs, we will fulfill our civic responsibilities by including a suitable warning.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

To say that we should legalise drug use because so many are violating the law is like saying since so many people are killing and raping, perhaps we should legalise these crimes as well.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Right now criminals and corrupt police have a monopoly on selling illegal firearms, heroin, and a whole range of proscribed items.

But by the logic of Dr Wodak, it would be the sensible thing to legalise the sale of submachine guns, and have them sold through the post offices. Or allow heroin to be freely sold, allowing addicts to pick up a batch at the nearest PO. While we are at it, maybe some child pornography and some African elephant tusks could also be conveniently made available this way.

After all, we want to take these things out of hands of the crims, don’t we?
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

One of the funniest arguments is that Zero Tolerance is compassionate compared to Harm Minimisation. The religious right argue that sending drug users to jail is a form of intervention that saves them from the evils of continuing drug use. We all know prisons are drug free. The line between addiction and recreational use is removed and all drugs are lumped into one category ... evil.

It is time the dangerous and failed ideology of the harm minimisation crowd is replaced with some realism which is genuinely compassionate and responsible.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus gives witness to the way a Christian should behave towards those who are addicted, bringing them to full health with love and kindness even to the point of inconvenience and personal cost.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

David Noffs has the last word on Harm Minimisation.

"I think all the public health officials who have condoned needle exchange programs should be held accountable for those poor souls who trusted them and died anyway!"
-David Noffs, President Life Education Centers International, Founding President Drug Watch International

Cannabis

Only coma and death are left for the cannabis smoker
-Herschel Mills Baker. Director - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

Apart from Harm Minimisation, the most argued about topic is cannabis. If you thought the wacky quotes on Harm Minimisation from the religious right were funny, you’re in for a treat.

Psychosis can occur after only one or two joints. Sex organs and unborn babies can be damaged too
-Churchill Fellow and former teacher Mrs Elaine Walters

Recently, some sections of the religious right have attempted to use science as a tool to bolster their support. It is the very weapon that has been used against them to squash their silly, non scientific moral based arguments. The problem is that science is about the truth and no amount of cherry picking data or junk science can change the facts. It’s probably not surprising considering the religious right cited science as the foundation of Intelligent Design(creationism) in their attempt to undermine evolution. Suddenly there were regular reports of cannabis causing everything from psychosis to shrinking brains. Statistical witch hunts and junk science became media headlines and fuel for a new wave of anti-cannabis crusaders.

An adolescent who uses marijuana goes to his doctor with symptoms of depression, and is prescribed medication. A few days later, he dies. It is assumed to be a case of youth suicide by overdose - the cause of death is found to be very high levels of anti-depressant medication. But he took his medicine exactly as prescribed. The combination of marijuana plus the medication killed him.
Dr John Anderson. Psycho-Physiologist. Speaking at a drug forum in Sydney on 19 June, 1999 commissioned by Brian Watters to counter previous and future drug forums that opposed his own personal views.

Whether their research was right or not, the religious right were prepared to make some remarkable claims.

Since cannabis use is shown to be even more dangerous than tobacco use, for example, that should be a strong part of why the believer should just say no, instead of buying into the legalisation crowd’s agenda.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

You simply are in denial about the 10,000 plus studies on the overwhelming harm caused by cannabis. The evidence alone should settle the matter here, not some libertarian ideology.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Even the oldest argument of them all, that cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs was re-risen from the dead after being disproved long ago.

...They start with alcohol and marijuana, but most of them end up on cocaine and heroin. I have seen 18 year old girls and by the time they are 19 they are like a spinned out washing machine...
-(Festival of Light article) Linda Coyle, the Perth madam who left the prostitution trade and became a Christian in 1997.

and

Those of us who have worked in the field for many years know that marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

and

Lest it be argued that it is mainly hard drugs that are associated with criminal activities, bear in mind that almost all people enter the world of hard drugs via the door of “soft” ones like marijuana. This is the overwhelming testimony of those working with drug addicts.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

And as I argued in the linked article, marijuana is a gateway drug which leads to harder drugs. This is a near universal experience of marijuana users. It was certainly true of me and my friends, and is quite common. Very few grass users just stay on grass.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

The strangest “fact” to arise was the claim that today’s cannabis is much more potent and therefore more dangerous than previously. Apart from ignoring the potency of hash (cannabis resin) that was common in the 1960s to the 1990s, they overlook one major flaw in their argument. Better quality cannabis meant less intake which probably decreased the harms through smoking less. Would a drinker who normally has 6 bottles of beer in one evening still have 6 bottles of whisky if the beer was not available? Of course not, they would consume less to reach the required effect. Is it a coincidence that low tar cigarettes were attacked by these same people as a trick? They argued that a nicotine addicted person would adjust their intake to meet their nicotine requirements. In other words, they would smoke more light cigarettes or less heavy cigarettes to suit their normal intake needs. Amazingly, this was overlooked when it comes to marijuana because cannabis smokers are just mindless, crazy junkies who will take whatever is put before them. The potency issue remains one of the key arguments for the cannabis crusaders.

Marijuana is very potent and very dangerous stuff. It is a far cry from the mild stuff us hippies in the 60s used to toke on. It is many times more powerful, and extremely dangerous. It is much stronger because of higher THC levels (the “high” producing element of cannabis). With increased potency comes increased health risks.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

These reports indicate a disturbing level of misinformation about the dangers of cannabis among health personnel at the highest levels. Some of the misinformation may be due to the high level of marijuana experimentation by university students and others in the “swinging sixties”. Some of these former students may be professional researchers, counsellors and doctors these days, and may not realise that the “pot” they smoked in their younger days had perhaps only 10% of the THC content of the cannabis for sale in today’s market. They may also still be occasional users of the drug.
-Mrs Roslyn Phillips. Festival of Light

So what Roslyn Phillips has revealed is that those who took this very dangerous drug, cannabis when students, are all now professional researchers, counsellors and doctors etc. Oops. Thanks Roslyn for clearing up the consequences of casually smoking dope!

Fear is an underlying strategy of the religious right. Cooked up theories and propaganda hiding behind religion gives legitimacy to their attempts at tricking the public. Scare tactics are common practice for the anti-drug nutters but having God on your side somehow makes it okay.

Witness after witness mentioned SA's big marijuana problem since growing ten plants was "decriminalised" in 1987. Some MPs from other states were disbelieving when a parent said it seemed "every second house" in Adelaide grows "dope" in the backyard. However Ann Bressington (left) of DrugBeat testified that in her area, "when you walk down the street of a night, you can smell the marijuana in the air."

"I work with police here, and they tell me that 90% of drug-related crimes - including violent home invasions and break-ins - are linked to marijuana. Only 10% are heroin-related," Bressington said.
-Festival of Light article

and

All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

God Said Drugs Are Bad

Heroin addiction is a fate worse then death
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

When it comes to 21st century medicine, the religious right are a mixed up lot. They are not afraid to take advantage of the many scientific advances unless it involves breaching their ideology. Women’s health, HIV/AIDS prevention, stem cell research and drug treatment are some issues that can be more important than people’s lives. It may just be that other people’s suffering is vastly different than it happening to themselves. It brings to mind the term, “collateral damage”. Surely those suffering aren’t that selfish that they can’t see the bigger plan?

The addicts in their iniquitous soul-destroying world of substance abuse don't understand the love and hope we have invested in them.
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Although the religious right often clash with science, they are not afraid to use their own special brand of research to prove their point. Like all good anti-drug moralists, they cherry pick their data to form an argument that washes well with an uninformed and emotional public. Harm Minimisation is a radical change to traditional treatments that have relied on years of public misinformation to appear appropriate. Luckily Harm Minimisation is very successful and slowly the public realise the benefits although groups like the religious right try their hardest to discredit it.

The drug lobby is playing a terrible hoax on the Australian people. In 1985 they pushed for misnamed `needle exchanges' - which are really needle giveaways. When heroin addicts inject and are `out of their minds', they dump their used needles wherever they happen to be - in parks or on the beach, where innocent people can receive deadly injuries.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

Some strategies include obvious lies.

The NSW government has now legalised possession of one gram of heroin - enough for 20 shots. Weak politicians have thus torpedoed the police campaign against drug dealers.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

Some strategies include bizarre statements.

If someone could prove to me that having supervised injecting rooms saves lives, I'd be the first to support them. But the evidence shows otherwise.
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Some strategies include good old Christian values.

How do we achieve this? Through research, and service delivery to our valued clients. We aim for a holistic service that includes good medicine, counselling, Christian teaching, housing, 12 step recovery program and other possible support from local church community networks.
-Dr George O’Neil - Fresh Start Recovery

Some strategies include outrageous claims like alcohol prohibition was a success.

It [alcohol prohibition] was the most lawful period in US history
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

and

Wodak also brings up the issue of Prohibition in America to justify this lunacy. Please allow me a few inconvenient truths here: During this period, consumption of alcohol declined substantially, as did the cirrhosis death rate for men (cut by two-thirds between 1911 and 1929), and arrests for public drunkenness dropped 50 per cent between 1919 and 1922.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Of course, the real agenda behind the anti-drug crusade from the religious right is Christian morality. Like most issues that irk them, society must take a back seat to their beliefs. By making drug use a moral issue, it gives them some control and a public voice including the ear of the government. Faith based programs are less successful than treatments based on Harm Minimisation which in the end, is hard to argue with. This is where God, morality and Christian values becomes essential to their argument.

And it still baffles me as to why any believer should seek to argue for the legalisation of illicit drugs. Why do believers want to go down that road? What biblical rationale is there for doing such things?
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Their message is simple - drugs are bad. People who take drugs are bad. They do not care about what’s best for addicts or if alcohol is far more dangerous than moderate drug use. It’s not the point. Drug use is associated with evil,

Our goal should be to deliver people from the oppression of the devil, not keep them enslaved to it.
[...]
The good news of the Kingdom of God is that people can be set free and given a new life. Injecting rooms do not do this. Thus they are neither Christian nor compassionate.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Maybe drug users are possessed.

Any police officer will tell you that a person on drugs will be more likely to neglect a child, abuse a spouse or take a life. It’s not just that people do bad things to get drugs; drugs make them do bad thing.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

In the end, according to the religious right, drug users have a simple choice. Turn to God for salvation.

A lot of damaged women and men in Adelaide tonight, are taking drugs to hide their hurt. If they are listening, I have a message from God for them. He says He loves you very much. He wants to save you from all the mess and pain in your life.
-Mrs Roslyn Phillips. Festival of Light

RELATED ARTICLES:
Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media
Did They Really Say That? Part 2 - Politicians

For an in depth look at the religious right in Australia and their influence on drug policy, read the articles below from Firesnake.
Australias Religious Right: Part 1
Australias Religious Right: Part 2
Australias Religious Right: Part 3

Did They Really Say That? Part 2 - Politicians

This is the second part in a 3 part series that puts the spotlight on some of the most remarkable comments aimed at brutalising drug policy in Australia.

Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS

 - White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner, 1986

Do politicians make more silly remarks about drugs than journalists? That’s debatable but what is not up for discussion is the importance of their responsibility to tell the truth. 

Some of the media can interpret events and facts according their particular agenda but why are politicians more renown for this shady practice? Doesn’t this defeat the whole process of democracy and elections? Politicians either lying or not knowing the facts when talking about extremely important issues is not acceptable and to even compare them with journalists for being deceitful is worrying. For politicians, it seems that lying or being void of the facts is acceptable as long as it is in the interest of their party, no matter how important the issue is.

It's time for Morris Iemma and Labor to wake up and realise that protecting families from drugs is more important than securing preferences from the Greens.

[...]

Ice is a scourge on our society. It's killing young people, it's undermining a whole generation and yet you have the Greens Party proposing decriminalisation.

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

The Greens drug policy including decriminalisation that Peter Debnam is talking about, caused much controversy in the media but it was mainly the politicians that used it as ammunition. The policy itself was very thorough and based on evidence. The problem was that in an effort to ride the current wave of controversy, the major political parties didn’t fully study the Greens drug policy and made some wild accusations that in hindsight, don’t really reflect the Green’s policy at all.

The Greens are not just about the environment. They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation … to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff.

-John Howard. Prime Minister.

That's why we're setting up specialised services in our hospitals to deal with this. It is just an absurd and ridiculous and disgusting policy.

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

any MP who supported such a policy was completely out of touch with reality

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

But I don’t think you can have at the core of it a message which says using heroin is ok. It is a deadly dangerous drug and I don’t think we want a party in Australia arguing that is actually is a good thing.

-Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

Any Member of Parliament who thinks we should de-criminalise drugs, including ‘Ice’, should take a good hard look at themselves, do the community a favour, and resign

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

One of the recent drug issues to cop a political hammering is a pure form of methamphetamine called ice. As we have heard over and over from the politicians and media is that ice is the most dangerous new drug to come out for a long time and it’s effecting us in epidemic proportions. The fact is, ice has been around for a long time and usage peaked many years ago. It’s only recently that we have seen reports of hospitals being ripped up by violent ice addicts and the epidemic levels of ice use but when use was highest, we hardly heard a peep. The effects of ice were largely over exaggerated but made a convenient issue for politicians to apply their “toughest on drugs” rhetoric.

Some of the stories of the way in which people have been terrorised and the way in which those who are addicted to ice lose all semblance of control and lapse into violent, uncontrolled, often homicidal rage and it is a frightening drug and we need a special emphasis.

-John Howard

Enough is enough, we must act before ice gets totally out of control as it can be purchased for $50

-Kevin Rudd

Ice had crept into the number one spot as Australia’s new problem drug. S.E. Asian crime organisations switched from heroin as their main export to ice but Howard and the AFP missed it. They were still trying to convince the public (and themselves) that they had stopped the heroin epidemic via the tough on drugs campaign ... which they hadn’t.

The tough-on-drugs campaigns have worked, it's just that ice has suddenly emerged in a way that the government wants to nip in the bud if it can

-Christopher Pyne 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Poor Chris. under his watch, ice was here. Yes, ice was indeed here, but the government was still spinning their other successes.

And as a result of our strategy hundreds of young Australians spent last Christmas with their parents who otherwise would have lost their lives or taken their lives as a result of heroin abuse

-John Howard. 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Whilst on heroin, a quick quote from that flossy ex opposition leader, Alex Dolly Downer. A classic “no WMDs” comment when asked about the growing opium trade in Afghanistan since the war on terror.

There may be links to the Taliban but it is certainly not believed to be a major source of funding for the Taliban (it was).

-Alexander Downer

As opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was not going to be left behind in the race to fight the ice problem but his dilemma was whether he appeared to be tough on drugs whilst trying to follow evidence based policy. So he announced Labor’s new ice initiative.

Australia needs new ideas and fresh thinking when it comes to dealing with critical and continuing problems such as drugs and crime. 

But our response must be tough, targeted and evidence-based

-Kevin Rudd. Federal Opposition Leader

And the great plan was - 3 new initiatives: a ban on the importation of crack pipes to smoke ice, a ban on the sale to minors of pseudoephedrine and a ban on the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet. Very good Kevin, that should do it.

The real debate though was being “tough on drugs”. A recent development was that, instead of debating drug strategies, the politicians would try to score brownie points for being the toughest of the tough and try to brand their opposition as “soft on drugs”. Howard aligned himself with the Zero Tolerance cheer squad including Bronwyn Bishop, Ann Bressington, Christopher Pyne etc. and attacked Harm Minimisation including terminology like recreational / party drugs, state cannabis laws and anything else that was not Zero Tolerance.

As I have said previously concerned parents need to watch closely who opposes the measure that will send a clear message that drugs are not normal teenage behaviour, whether that be members of parliament educates or health care professionals it will be an indication of who is soft on drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Labor's preference deal with the Greens, who were soft on drugs, showed the ALP was not as strict on the issue

-John Howard

No-one can accuse the Iemma Government on being soft on drugs

-John Watkins. NSW Police Minister

No-one can accuse this Government of being soft on drugs

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

I wish the Greens wouldn’t be soft on drugs ... and national security

-Ron Boswell. Nationals Leader in The Senate

Dr. Alex Wodak gives his “soft on drugs” quote.

Howard can't lose on this. If he wins, he'll be wrapped in the Australian flag as protecting the youth of the future. If he loses, then the states get labelled 'soft on drugs'."

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Being tough on drugs never quite worked out though in the real world. The ice issue was got plenty of attention but what about other issues. Drugs in sport.

The NRL applies limited sanctions for the first position, and for the second, a more serious penalty. This accords precisely with the Government's approach - we don't give any quarter to anyone about drugs.

-Christopher Pyne. Congratulating the NRL on their 2 strike policy being an example of the government’s 1 strike policy

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC)

He (Mark Latham) wants to read books to kids when they're five and he wants to give them access to drug injecting rooms when he's 15.

-Tony Abbott. Health Minister

Politicians loved the MSIC. So much so, that when other states showed interest in the service, the federal government threatened to step in.

We would look at what the Commonwealth could do constitutionally. If there were any further proposals in Australia for heroin injecting rooms, we would look at what action we could take

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

How about the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre AND ice

The Commonwealth Government does not support the heroin injecting room, and if it is becoming the ice injecting room we think that is the wrong approach

-Christopher Pyne

... how about everything ... including graffiti.

...social issues that are all too often underpinned by substance abuse, such as youth suicide; teenage pregnancy; abortion; unemployment; welfare dependency; poor school retention rates; family breakdown; child abuse, neglect and abandonment; domestic violence; prostitution; crime; road rage; road fatalities; and even graffiti, believe it or not.

-Ann Bressington

... and think of the children

We do not hearabout how many babies are born addicted in this country. Now he was not just a heroin baby; he was a methamphetamine baby, a methadone baby, a dope baby, a pill baby. God knows how he turned out normal.

-Ann Bressington

Ah, Ann Bressington ... Chris Pyne with a bogan haircut. Chris Pyne and Ann Bressington are birds of a feather. Both are from S.A., both with strong views against drugs, both with out a shred of credibility and both wanting to ban drug paraphernalia. What is Pyne speak for “ban the bong”?

I'm certainly concerned about the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances

-Christopher Pyne

This was par for the course. If they couldn’t stop people from using drugs, they were going to make it hard for them. It didn’t matter if it actually stopped drug use or not as long as there was a sound bite to go with it.

Imposing a ban on the sale of drug paraphernalia not only sends the message that drugs are socially unacceptable, but it makes it more difficult for first-time drug users to experiment with illicit substances.

-Christopher Pyne

First time drug users of course didn’t give a shit about whether they had a bong or not, they could just whip one up at home with their neighbours garden house and a orange juice container. 

Ann had a different reason why the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances was wrong. It was for their own good because they didn’t really enjoy it.

... in her 11 years of experience she has not met one drug user that has not had underlying emotional issues, and this is why they use drugs, to avoid dealing with those issues. People who know how to enjoy themselves don’t use drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Arh, Bressington logic. That explains why the millions who have used drugs, don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

With all this tough on drugs talk and each politician trying to get one up on the other, it was bound to happen. Yep, fighting amongst themselves was inevitable.

The Labor party room is divided in its attitudes to drugs. Duncan Kerr, a member of Mr Rudd's frontbench, is the convenor of the Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform. This group supports decriminalisation and harm-reduction policies ahead of a tough, no-nonsense approach

-Christopher Pyne

I don't want to name those members but sometimes you have thoughts particularly if they are campaigning to legalise marijuana, cannabis and they think it's a harmless drug

I think the deduction could be, if that's their view, that they are using it themselves.

-Fred Nile. Politician - Christian Democrat

All health professionals and law-enforcement agencies are horrified by the impact of ice on our community, and here you see the State Government condoning - in fact, promoting - the use of ice

-Peter Debnam. NSW Politician. Alarmed that addicts were allowed to inject ice in the MSIC centre

What about the politicians nightmare, cannabis? The issue of personal use being decriminalised has seen several states reduce the penalties for cannabis possession to on-the-spot fines or similar. Moving towards a more rational approach on cannabis is long overdue but the previous government had other ideas. Alcohol was fine and received very little attention but a drug that causes a tiny percentage of problems in comparison was not. 

We have to treat it(cannabis) as an illicit drug as dangerous as heroin, amphetamines or cocaine

-Christopher Pyne

Even though alcohol causes 100 times more damage than cannabis, the Howard government just couldn’t take the focus off grass. The National Cannabis Strategy was released, portraying marijuana as a dangerous, evil drug when the National Alcohol Strategy had this to say:

Alcohol plays an important role in the Australian economy. It generates substantial employment, retail activity, export income and tax revenue. Alcohol also has an important social role...

Personally, I like this quote about alcohol:

Woman: "Sir, you are drunk." 

Winston Churchill: "Indeed, madam, and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober."

We know that governments like to take credit whenever there is a dip in drug use statistics, but when those statistics aren’t so flattering, why try and explain it away, just make up your own results. This classic quote is from Christopher Pyne, answering criticism about research into a national anti-drug advertising campaign that found Australians already know the dangers and it was not actually stopping people from using drugs

It confirms research (it didn’t) that the Government's done, which shows that younger people, in particular, are becoming very well aware of the harmful effects of cannabis and other illicit drugs on their mental state -Christopher Pyne

Yes, it’s true, he did say this.

It seems obvious now that tough drug policies, especially Zero Tolerance is the way to go if you want to be a successful politician. The problem is that Harm Minimisation is Australia’s official drug policy but it’s probably best not to let the public in on that. HM underlies all the success but ZT is the political profile that gets votes. 

They are evil, all of them, and there should be an uncompromising social condemnation of drugs. Why can't we have the same attitude towards drugs that a large section of the community has developed towards tobacco?

-John Howard

Well for the life of me I can't see why we shouldn't have a completely zero tolerance, an uncompromising approach to illicit drug taking

-John Howard

The first and most important thing governments have got to do is communicate a message of unconditional hostility to the use of illicit drug

-John Howard

If only it was that simple. You see, Zero Tolerance doesn’t work and never has. Basically it’s prohibition but puts users in the same class as the big dealers and manufacturers. But the criminals at the top are very hard to catch, so rounding up users becomes the strategy to show success. The larger the drug problem grows, the more that easy pickings like users and small time dealers are targeted. It’s known as “drugs on the table” or the “numbers game”. It doesn’t help anyone but as the problem grows, the more the public want results so showing that the police are being tough on drugs is hailed as the answer. The problem being that the answer is the actual cause.

Zero Tolerance is the basis for the "War on Drugs". Bronwyn Bishop even named her infamous report, “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Is it really winnable?

There are naysayers who believe a global fight against illegal drugs is unwinnable. I say emphatically they are wrong. Our slogan for the Special Session is "A Drug Free World - We Can Do It!" The United Nations and the International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will help lead the way. - Towards a drug-free world by 2008 - we can do it…

-Pino Arlacchi. 1998. United Nations Under-Secretary-General

“We can do it” ... we didn’t. Not only didn’t we reach the goal of a drug free world, drug use increased. Those zany, crazy UN people.

Prohibition has been proven not to work for both drugs and alcohol. Funnily enough, we always refer to alcohol prohibition as a huge failure but it is minor in comparison to the failure of drug prohibition. This is what one of the greatest minds ever known had to say about prohibition.

The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.

-Albert Einstein

John Howard was optimistic though.

We are making progress in the war against drugs, but we have a long way to go

-John Howard

There was one positive though according to US Republican and political commentator, P.J. O'Rourke .

Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.

-P.J. O'Rourke

So who is right? Howard? Rudd? Pyne? Roxon? Which policy is best for Australia? Harm Minimisation? Zero Tolerance. John Howard never really knew what the official drug policy was for Australia and always said we have to be tough on drugs including users. Does Rudd support ZT or does he support evidence based policy? Well that’s hard to tell because there has been no official drug policy from Labor since they took office. Let’s see what the Rudd and Howard governments have said previously. BTW, Harm Minimisation is still the official drug policy since 1985.

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse.

Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

We will never adopt a harm minimisation strategy; we will always maintain a zero tolerance approach.

-John Howard

We're judgemental when it comes to the undesirability of starting drug taking in the first place. We shouldn't be judgmental about people who have become addicted. We should be helpful towards them, we should offer them support, we should offer them rehabilitation and we should offer them comfort and affection.

-John Howard

Our general approach when it comes to drugs policy is one of zero tolerance

-Kevin Rudd. Opposition Leader.

I believe in evidence-based policy

-Kevin Rudd. Prime Minister

And finally we turn to Christopher Pyne for the final word on the complex issue of drug policy in Australia.

We firstly have to make people understand that using drugs is wrong, it's bad for them, it's bad for the general society because of all the problems that it causes.

-Christopher Pyne

Yes, again, he did say this.

So there we have it, evidence versus politics. It might be of interest to note that recently, nearly every credible report commissioned by a government into a strategy for making progress on the drug problem has been completely ignored by the government itself. Our politicians cannot defend themselves as not having adequate information on alternative policies or not knowing the damage that current strategies are having on society. The quotes I have presented might be humorous or even absurd but politicians, of all people, should be taking this subject seriously. Yes, we hear it all the time now, that this subject or that subject is above politics but illicit drugs are the second largest industry on the planet. Larger than oil or legal drugs and only out shadowed by weapons/miltary spending. It is responsible for much of the world’s crime and divides communities more than any other subject except maybe religion. The biggest issue though, is that the above issues which are man made and preventable keep getting documented and ignored by politicians. That’s truly shameful.

In thoughtful circles, the debate is over, harm reduction wins. 

Now the task is to get this through the political maze

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Previous: Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media

Next: Did They Really Say That? Part 3 - The Religious Right