Showing posts with label Junk Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Junk Science. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

The Deceitful World of Anti-Drug Zealots

Just how far will anti-drug and anti-harm minimisation pundits go to push their agenda? Read on as Paul Gallagher examines how some groups and individuals are bombarding us with flawed, cherry picked data as they attempt to influence drug policy.

The Deceitful World of Anti-Drug Zealots
A special report for The Australian Heroin Diaries
By Paul Gallagher

On February 2nd, an email appeared on the ADCA Update list from Jo Baxter, Executive Officer of the Australian branch of Drug Freedom, Drug Free Australia Inc. In line with the reality that Drug Free is Evidence Free, Jo had taken issue with Alex Wodak's insightful piece Agony over Ecstasy is helping no-one . It examined the arrest of Matthew Chesher, a suddenly erstwhile official in the NSW government and hubby to state minister Verity Firth, for purchasing an Ecstasy tablet.

Alex, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St. Vincent's hospital Sydney, had returned from Lisbon, Portugal ten days prior and naturally included their now proven decriminalisation policy in his article. Jo wanted readers to get the real facts, and directed us, quite naturally one supposes, to Decriminalisation of Drugs in Portugal - The Real Facts!. Uh-oh, I cringed. An exclamation mark - the conspiracy theorists secret handshake - and "wfad" in the URL. 

What could it be? Decriminalisation causes autism? Portuguese stoners were behind 9/11? Not going to jail makes one more violent than video games? I braced myself and was rewarded with text book crap, ducking and weaving, thundering away at the evidence. The author was a moron, a crackpot even given his opinionated ramblings. He belonged on the World Forum Against Drugs site.

In recent and delightful forays into the twilight world of anti-vaccination conspiracies, I became acquainted with Scopie's Law. The anti-vaccination brigade are gullible in the extreme shirking reality - never mind evidence - in their quest to shift universal facts, including history, physics, geology, medicine, etc. Scopie's Law originated on the Bad Science forum thanks to Rich Scopie and states;

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room.

It also includes "Answers in Genesis" to argue Creationism, or Educate-yourself.org. With respect to The World Forum Against Drugs, a strong case can be made to include it also. At least in our busy world, and given the importance of drug policy, it seems we find ourselves faced with the need for an equally efficient device. This is entirely due to time wasting to stem from balderdash published there solely to convey a negative view, couched in phoney "scientific" terms, of all manner of progressive policy initiatives. Not least, illicit drug decriminalisation in Portugal by Drug Free, prohibition worshipping, anti-drug proponents who also present archaic, brutal notions as rosy. 

The text of Decriminalisation of Drugs in Portugal - The Real Facts!, Manuel Pinto Coelho (Chairman of APLD - Association for a Drug Free Portugal and member of International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy) - Feb. 2010, was published in a slightly updated form in Replies to Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal, October 2010, BMJ. He really shouldn't have continued the farce. Because three months prior the 2008 figures on Portugal were published, leaving him scant, if any pickings indeed.

As usual without a cursory bibliography it is difficult to confirm or deny the context of such sweeping statements, particularly as they are presented without trend or comparison. Citing the European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007, a number of claims are made. A quick search for the "Observatory" yields only the same articles by Coelho, and indeed The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The Observatory is mentioned in the Nov. 2003 Congressional Record USA, Vol 149, under "Intervention of the delegation of The Holy See", and a nice little reference to Pope John Paul II. Perhaps he meant the EMCDDA. Either way, it does him no good.

Some of his claims include;

In 2006, the total number of deaths as a consequence of overdose did not diminish radically compared to 2000, nor did the percentage of drug addicts with AIDS decrease significantly (from 57% to 43%). The opposite occurred. 

"The opposite occurred"? Page 48 of EMCDDA 2006 data, gives us some clarity on changing trends over time;

Data from the GMR (Selection B of the DRD Protocol) continue to indicate a decrease which started to take place from 1996 (114 cases) until 2005 (9 cases). The number of cases implies that breakdown data on them ceased to be available for statistics privacy reasons.

Although acute drug-related deaths are not yet possible to identify amongst the cases reported by the SMR, it has been possible to identify the percentage of suspected acute drug-related deaths. In 2006, 216 cases with positive post mortem toxicological tests were reported by the Special Register. A figure close to the one registered in 2005 (219) but an increase in comparison to previous years (156 on 2002, 152 in 2003 and 156 in 2004). 52% of the cases with positive toxicological tests and information on the presumed aetiology of death were suspected to be acute drug-related deaths. This percentage, which decreased between 2000 and 2003, increased in 2004 to 51% and again in 2005 to 58%, in comparison to previous years (44% in 2003, 58% in 2002, 73% in 2001 and 72% in 2000) and decrease again in 2006.

Regarding HIV/AIDS page 52 offers;

Taking only 2006 notified cases, 37% of the AIDS cases, 28% of the AIDS related complex cases and 19% of the asymptomatic carriers cases were drug use associated.
This agains reinforces the decreasing trend, verified since 1998, in the absolute numbers and percentage of drug users in the overall number of diagnosed AIDS cases, as seen in the graph below, despite the fact that, in 2005, the infection by HIV was included in the national list of diseases which implies mandatory notification.

EMCDDA 2006 DATA, p. 52


Further reading of that page offers more clarity. The 2007 data report reads very closely. 
Coelho continues; 

Portugal faces a worrying deterioration of the drug situation. The facts prove "With 219 deaths from 'overdose' per year, Portugal has one of the worst results, with one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal registered an increase of deaths by more than 30% in 2005 " and " Portugal remains the country with the highest increase of AIDS as a result of injecting drugs (85 new cases per million residents in 2005, when the majority of countries do not surpass 5 cases per million).  Portugal is the only country that recorded a recent increase, with 36 new cases estimated per million in 2005 when in 2004 only 30 were registered" (European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007). The European report also confirmed that in 2006, Portugal had registered 703 new cases of SIDA, which corresponds to a rate eight times higher than the European average!

It's a bit like screaming at surgeons in Causality as they begin to operate on a loved one bleeding to death from multiple injuries. "His B.P. is lower than when he arrived, he lost consciousness not long after you touched him! Of the 27 people in here he's one of the worst! This is a hospital and he's not getting better - why isn't he better? There's blood everywhere and I now have proof of bone fractures and swelling on the brain - which I didn't have before I came here!"

What's truly devious about the tactics used by anti-drug campaigners is the cherry picking of data. Despite having read, and quoted in the same article, the World Drug Report 2009 our friend Manuel will ignore it when it suits him. Extraordinary claims require the evidence to back them and that means a link or a citation backed by a bibliography. Another trick used to pass Portugal off as a nation of drug induced tragedy and woe, is Coelho's use of "Western European" figures or "France, Ireland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal". He omits to share with us, for example in the case of opiates, that of nine indices Portugal has lower usage per capita than Switzerland and on UK population figures, Portuguese addicts would equal approximately 260,000 - not the UK's own 440,000. Statistically opiate use is still lower than Italy, whilst higher than Germany, France, Spain and The Netherlands.




WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009 - PAGE 55.


Whilst 219 deaths from overdoses and a 2005 increase of 30%, "along with Greece, Austria and Finland" is eye catching, Coelho's "real facts" are quite welcome if we note annual OD's were ~ 400 before decriminalisation and "HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank." 


Coelho dispatches Cato and others smartly in his opening, ominously painting himself into a corner. He writes;

Recent articles in the weekly British magazine, The Economist and The Cato Institute of Washington promote government options as a legitimate right. The problem is the rest; the manipulation of the facts and numbers is unacceptable!

Remember that - "manipulation of the facts and numbers...". More so, the very recent slight increase in negative outcomes is not contested by policy analysts nor a viable proof of legalisation's social malignancy, as seemingly claimed. The Boston Globe reported last month, citing research by Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens;

In fact, drug-related deaths in Portugal — after falling between 1999 and 2002 — jumped considerably between 2005 and 2008. 

But the drug-related death data is misleading, most likely due to a “shift in measurement practices,” and an increase in the number of toxicological autopsies performed, according to Hughes’s and Stevens’s research. And Hughes also takes issue with Humphreys’s argument that drug use, in general, is increasing at a dramatic clip.

What’s most relevant, she [Hughes] said, is not the percentage of people reporting using drugs at some point over some course of their lifetime, but the percentage of people reporting using drugs in the past year. “That’s going to be affecting the government and communities now,” she said. And here, the increase of Portuguese reporting illicit drug use is much smaller — up from 3.4 percent in 2001 to 3.7 in 2007."

The percentage of people reporting drug use in the past year... going to be affecting government and communities. 

Wise words from Hughes. When we look at “ever used”, “lifetime use” and recent use, vastly different conclusions can be drawn. If drug use is falling over a short time frame or in response to new initiatives, the drop can be lost if “ever used” figures are quoted. This includes, say, one time experimenters and new/long term sober ex-users responding to treatment, giving a skewed view of ever increasing drug use. 

Audaciously, Coelho scurrilously quotes the same IDC 2008 data as that used by Hughes and Stevens who arrive at almost polar conclusions, to state the mundane. "On the contrary, the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007". Which, in the context of pre-legalisation uptake and the now much reduced harm, increased treatment, reduced crime and deaths is nothing short of petulant and laughable.

More so, if one searches for these key words hoping to find the IDT making much of the equation, 12% - 7.8% = 4.2% one finds Coelho lurking in almost every corner of the internet that Portugal's success is reported. As noted he repeated his piece in Rapid Responses to Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal, BMJ - Oct. 2010. It's repeated in a comment to a BBC article here September 2010. The same day as he published it at WFAD it appears on Brazilian Humanitarians in Action. Comments at Wired In To Recovery January 12th, 2011 see "PeaPod" copy/paste the same text. In fact, everywhere one sees that 4.2% pop up it is attributed to Manic Manuel. Golf clap, dear reader, golf clap.

In The British Journal of Criminology, What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalisation Of Illicit Drugs?, Hughes and Stevens consult the IDT data extensively. Strangely, 4.2% is entirely absent in this voluminous text. It is here we can see why Coelho makes liberal use of combining Portugal with Spain and other nations. Consider Fig's 2 & 3 - number of offender arrests.

Their final conclusion continues the unraveling of Coelho...

In the Portuguese case, the statistical indicators and key informant interviews that we have reviewed suggest that since decriminalization in July 2001, the following changes have occurred:

small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;

reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;

reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;

increased uptake of drug treatment;

reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;

increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;

reductions in the retail prices of drugs.

Perhaps the most damning abuse of evidence at Coelho's hands is that of the World Drug Report 2009. He quotes it in his article and thus, has clearly read it. From misrepresentation to fabrication, every "reference" made can be qualified differently. For a chap popping lofty titles after his name and leading the charge for a "Drug Free" Portugal it's incomprehensible that he's unaware of the INCB's 2004 mission to Portugal, and their conclusion that possession remained prohibited. 

Initially he refers to decriminalisation as "in prejudice of the guidelines of the UN Conventions of which Portugal is a signatory." According to the WDR 2009, that our friend Manuel has read, the INCB conclude Portugal's legislation is within Convention Parameters.

On page 168 we read;

Those in possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use are issued with a summons rather than arrested. The drugs are confiscated and the suspect must appear before a commission. The suspect’s drug consumption patterns are reviewed, and users may be fined, diverted to treatment, or subjected to probation. Cases of drug trafficking continue to be prosecuted, and the number of drug trafficking offences detected in Portugal is close to the European average.

Page 183;

The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it “noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited,” and said “the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties...


The intentional deception goes on. Coelho writes in a masterpiece of Special Pleading;

With regard to hashish, it is difficult  to assess the trends and intensive use of hashish in Europe, but among the countries that participated in field trials, between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands and Portugal) there was an average increase of approximately 20% " (EMCDDA, 2008).

20%! Really? Remember, his article is called "Decriminalisation Of Drugs In Portugal - The Real Facts". What if we isolate Portugal from page 111 of the 2009 WDR. In 2001 Portugal's annual prevalence of cannabis use was 3.3%. Five years later in 2006 it was 3.6%. Italy had more than double from 6.2 to 14.6% up to 2007. But the juiciest bit on page 110 is that DRUG FREE Sweden increased cannabis use by almost 300% rising from 0.7% in 2000, to 2.2% in 2004 to 2.0% in 2006. So, by 2006, Sweden's Drug Free Zero Tolerance led to a three fold increase vs Portugal's 9.0% increase. 

And how convenient to include Spain in misrepresenting illicit drug trends in Portugal. Spain tops the world for cannabis resin seizures grinning away at 50% or 653,631 kg for 2007. Portugal manages 3% - or 42,772 kg. So, Manuel almost certainly knows it's not "difficult to assess" at all. Coelho is cherry picking his data to convey his outmoded ideology as statistically valid. 

However, Manuel has referenced the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction - EMCDDA 2008. It would indeed be most remiss of me to not fan the smoke and remove the mirrors here also. The site itself is a triumph of illicit drug research collation for Europe. A search for "Portugal, 2008" pulls up 300 items. This is where Coelho's lack of citation, a favourite trick of prohibitionists, gives him the inside lane again. The EMCDDA publishes 2007 Portugal data in 2008. 2008 Portugal data in 2009. Hence "EMCDDA, 2008" is a nonsense reference not worthy of a high school essay. Referring to psychoactive substance EMCDDA 2007 data states (page 17); 

Results from the II National Population Survey on Psychoactive Substances in the Portuguese Population (15-64 years) indicate that cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy are the substances preferely used by Portuguese, with lifetime prevalences respectively of 11,7%, 1,9% and 1,3%. Between 2001 and 2007, despite the increase of lifetime prevalence in several illicit substances, a generalised decrease was verified in the continuation rates use.

You can read the breakdown of populations into sex, age, military, etc for yourself. Lifetime prevalence for cannabis for 3rd cycle students in 2001 was 10%, in 2007 6.3%. High school students showed 26% in 2001 and 19% in 2007. For total population use over the last 12 months is the same in 2001 and 2007 - 2.4%. 15 - 34 years indicate 4.4% in 2001 and 4.7% in 2007. These figures really aren't cause for carry on in either direction. They certainly don't support Coelho's claim of a 20% increase as part of policy failure. 

But what perhaps exposes our Chairman of the Association for a Drug Free Portugal for the reckless fool he is, must be his obsession with prohibition. Right up to the point of ignoring the growth in Drug Free communities and referrals laid out on page 46 of the same document he uses in his failure to statistically condemn Portugal. As in Australia the Drug Free mob seem to be lonely fringe dwelling outcasts, unable to reciprocate outside their peculiar conservative beliefs.

Inpatient drug free treatment is mainly available in public and private15 therapeutic communities. In 2007 there were 76 therapeutic communities (3 public and 73 private units) in mainland Portugal. In comparison to 2006 there was 3 more private therapeutic communities. Contrarily to the decreasing figure that has been registered since 2002, in 2007 the number of registered clients in both public (134 clients, 110 in 2006) and private units (4 423 clients, 4 118 in 2006) increased in comparison to previous years.

As the Chairman of a national organisation Coelho has had ample time to retract and/or correct his piece/s. He hasn't and ignores further data to the contrary. The 2009 National Report on Portugal (2008 data) to the EMCDDA gives a swift rebuttal to Coelho's trick of submerging Portugal in a string of nations. It is heavy on IDT data - the source of Coelho's primary claim of increasing drug use - which we shall consult and clarify. However the IDT website offers the following measured view; 

Drugs in Portugal - situation and responses
In the context of Drugs and Drug Addiction, the year 2006 was distinguished by the effort developed by all Bodies and Entities with intervention in this area, in order to find effective coordination forms, with a clear definition of the priorities and responsibilities of each intervenient.

Following the assessment of the Portuguese Drug Strategy 1999, the year in which the strategic goals were redefined and included in the National Action Plan Horizon 2012 and was outlined the Action Plan mid-term (Horizon 2008), with the actions’ schedule, clear assumption of the responsibilities in the carrying out and definition of measurable indicators in order to be monitored

Drug use
Cannabis continues to be the most used drug and its visibility in several indicators continues to increase, alone or in combination with other substances.

Nevertheless, heroin remains as the main drug involved in health drug use related consequences and in some of the legal drug use related consequences.

The presence of cocaine is increasingly being mentioned in several indicators, namely concerning the recreational, treatment and market settings.
          
Lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use (Balsa 2001)
2006 school survey data seems to indicate a decrease in drug use prevalence amongst the pupils of the 6th, 8th and 10th grades (aged 12 to 19). However this is based on preliminary data only and more in-depth analyses will be needed to confirm this apparent decrease.

Responses to drug use were re-organised at national level, following the 2004 evaluation and the 2005 drafting of new National Plan.

Emphasis will be placed in local needs assessment and the provision of integrated responses, in accordance with the identified needs. Integrated responses will have the possibility of including the areas of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation.

The news ticker on the site happens to only offer The Success of Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal.

But on to the EMCDDA 2008 Report. Page 5 offers;

Results from national estimations on problematic drug use in Portugal indicate that there are between 6.2 and 7.4 problematic drug users for each 1 000 inhabitants aged 15-64 years, and between 1.5 and 3.0 for the definition of problematic drug users (injecting drug users). Between 2000 and 2005, the estimate number of problematic drug users in Portugal has shown a clear decline, with special relevance for injecting drug users… 

...Indicators available continue to suggest effective responses at treatment level (increase in the number of clients involved in both drug free and substitution programmes) and at harm reduction level. The number of active clients in the outpatient public treatment network increased as well as first treatment demands (for the second time since 2000 changed the decrease trend). Heroin continues to be the main substance associated to health consequences and specifically in the sub-population of drug users that seek access to different treatment structures, but references to cocaine, cannabis and alcohol in this setting are increasing.

The availability of substitution programmes continues to increase and the number of clients continues to increase steadily (increases were registered in the number of clients in methadone and buprenorphine programmes).

Page 6 does indeed show a negative trend in General Mortality in 2008 - up 6 from 14 to 20 which Coelho misses. However, Coelho's claims of increasing use and HIV are seen to be false along with a welcome drop in HCV rates.

The decreasing trend in the percentage of drug users in the total number of notifications of HIV/AIDS cases continues to be registered. Concerning HIV infection in the treatment setting, the percentages of HIV positive cases (prelavences) varied between 9% and 25%, showing a tendency for decrease in last years.

Hepatitis B positive cases (prevalences) remained stable in comparison to previous years and Hepatitis C registered the smaller values of the last four years.

This decrease may be related, amongst other factors, to the implementation of harm reduction measures, which may be leading to a decrease in intravenous drug use (also visible in data concerning administration route in first treatment demands), or to intravenous drug use in better sanitary conditions, as indicated by the number of exchanged syringes in the National Programme “Say no to a second hand syringe”.

...In 2008, a increase was registered on drug-related mortality in the General Mortality Register in comparison to 2007 (20 in 2008 and 14 in 2007)...

...In Portugal, treatment for HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis B and C is included in the National Health Service and therefore available and free for those who need it.

In 2008, it is worth noting the enlargement of the socio sanitary structures and responses to drug users, the definition and implementation of technical guidelines in order to improve the quality of intervention and procedures that are more efficient, as well as the participation in working groups to define responses to populations with specific needs.

In the prison setting, inmates and staff are routinely vaccinated against Hepatitis B.

Remember the ubiquitous Coelho paragraph, polluting our search results?

The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008).

On the contrary? On the contrary, Manuel, that's remarkably ignorant. Did you correct for that ubiquitous inflator of "drug use" figures - the one off or infrequent cannabis user? Perhaps not. What does the IDT data show within EMCDDA 2008, seeing as you're booming about it?  From Page 19;

There are no significant differences between 2001 and 2007 results; there was a slight increase of cocaine and heroin use at least once in lifetime by females and a decrease in all the other substances.


Clearly, cannabis is the dominating drug. And we can see the relevance of Caitlan Hughes stating that, "... percentage of people reporting drug use in the past year", is of significance. With no change over the past 30 days in six years and an insignificant change over 12 months, this reflects more experimentation and infrequent use - not lumbering stoners. 

Some of Manuel's best distortions however, are in carving up his cocaine lines. Pun intended.

Coelho correctly informs us that drug related murders increased 40%. The report notes elsewhere Portugal's position as a transit nation. "It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006", he warns citing the WDR 2009. So, let's check that very report on page 168 to note;

While cocaine seizures in a number of European countries increased sharply during that period, in 2006, Portugal suddenly had the sixth-highest cocaine seizure total in the world. The number of murders increased 40% during this same period of time, a fact that might be related to the trafficking activity. Although the rate remains low and Lisbon is one of Europe’s safest cities, Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in murder during this period.

This rapid increase in trafficking was probably related to the use of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, former colonies, as transit countries. Most of the traffickers arrested in Portugal in 2007 were of West African origin. As international awareness of the problem increased, cocaine seizures fell in a number of European countries, but France and Portugal, two countries with former colonies in the region, showed the most pronounced decreases.

So this is down to non-nationals taking advantage of Portugal's geographic location - and at times getting murdered as a result. Certainly not what Coelho would have us believe. Scare stories about "drug tourism" are without foundation also. 

But let's examine that last sentence - "pronounced decreases";


WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009 - PAGE 72

Again, I can only think of the moron in the man who thought he could quote this report and expect to get away with misrepresenting it. 

On page 168 of the WDR 2009 we read;

...the number of drug trafficking offences detected in Portugal is close to the European average.

These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal’s policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism. It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased.

Cocaine use for Portugal was 0.3% in 2001 and 0.6% in 2006 - a doubling in 5 years. Seizures over a similar time frame are 5,574 kg in 2001, 3,021 kg in 2003, 18,083 kg in 2005, 34,477 kg in 2006 and 7,363 kg in 2007. If seizures reflected usage they would be around 11,000 kg in 2006 to accommodate the doubling of use. As they reflect transit we see over 34,000 kg.

And on it goes. Page after page in publication after publication supporting Portugal's decriminalisation, refuting critics and most importantly damning the misleading and damaging pseudoscientific twaddle of one Manuel Pinto Coelho. Published in February 2010 Coelho's piece purposely shirks more recent data conveying an entirely different trend. His deception is confirmed by republishing again and again after the World Drug Report 2009 became available in July 2010, refuting his intellectual rampage most thoroughly. Seizing on poor data sets and extreme examples out of context, he’d do climate change denialists proud. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, stimulants, hashish, murder, HIV and even one of those spooky opinion polls recording “attitudes” of the Portuguese that as we well know, are not science. 

At the last, he tries to pass off an esoteric analysis in which Portugal allows criminal activity to be conducted by “the sick” such that “Pretend you are sick and the government pretends to treat you”. Addicts are now seen as patients, not “delinquents” he bemoans pathetically, who are “assumed” free and responsible. The state is feeding the “disease”.

What is worse however, is that this nonsense is swallowed in it's entirety by Drug Free Australia who then spread it into the community as, no doubt, "the real facts". 

And in doing so, they continue to contribute to ignorance, crime, drug related harm, reduction in treatment income, discrimination, family breakdown, incarceration and the building of more prisons, blood borne viruses - which affect us all - wasted funding dollars and the sequestering of same away from worthwhile community projects.

Some topics are too serious for stupidity and contrariness. There comes a time when despite the media's desire for "balance" and the government's view to allow airing of all views, we must decide if any "debate" still exists. The simple fact is, Jo Baxter and cohorts within Drug Free Australia - despite analogues around the world - cause far too much damage to allow them the quaint belief they might be correct.

I wish they weren't here.


Related Articles


Sunday, 5 September 2010

Gateway Theory Debunked … Again!

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

You have to feel sorry for people who have learning difficulties. Especially those who bang on and on and on about cannabis being a “gateway” to harder drugs.

It seems that no amount of evidence will stop over zealous, dip-shit anti-drug pundits from spreading their lies and propaganda. Not even those pesky scientists who keep proving them wrong, will keep them quiet.

I wonder what their response will be to the latest study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire who once again disproved “The Gateway Theory”? Somehow I doubt if we will hear much about it. When was the last time you heard a politician or anti-drug group declare they were wrong or the “The Gateway Theory” is obsolete? When was the last time you read about it in the mainstream media?

So, why do they persist? Most people or groups who constantly reject medical research and scientific evidence are usually just written off as nutters but some of these zealots will go to great lengths in a desperate attempt to push their disingenuous cause. Even to the point of using junk science. For example:

In contrast, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy’s “2008 Marijuana Sourcebook” clearly states that recent research supports the gateway hypothesis, specifically that “its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine”.

Of course, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy aka The Drug Czar is notorious for dishing up government sponsored propaganda. Remember, this is the group that manages the "War on Drugs" for the US and the UN. Maybe if they spent more time reading up on the available scientific evidence instead of sifting through volumes of anti-drug propaganda they would come to a different conclusion. Nah, who am I kidding?

It is hard to keep the same attitudes to cannabis prohibition when Obama and the two previous US Presidents are known to have smoked cannabis. Perhaps cannabis is a gateway drug after all * the drug that young Americans have to try if they want to become President of the USA.

Ironically, there is some truth about cannabis leading to harder drugs but not for the reasons quoted by the gateway theory supporters. It’s actually the policies pushed by these supporters that are to blame. Simply smoking cannabis doesn’t make someone automatically want something stronger or harder. It’s the association with drug dealers that smokers are forced to endure because of our strict drug laws. Some of these dealers will undoubtedly sell harder drugs, giving way to pressure to try another drug. Pot smokers are forced underground where all drug users are grouped together by a society that doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. Most pot smokers never go on to harder drugs nor do they want to but being forced underground with addicts, criminals and speed dealers exposes them to a world that they normally wouldn’t encounter.


Teen Pot Smoking Won't Lead to Other Drugs as Adults
Study Shows Marijuana Isn't a 'Gateway' to Other Drugs as Teens Turn Into Adults
By Salynn Boyles. Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
September 2010

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

Teens in the study who smoked marijuana were more likely to go on to use harder illicit drugs, but the gateway effect was lessened by the age of 21, investigators say.

Harder drugs in the study referred to illicit drugs that include analgesics, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers.

The study is published in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Failure to graduate from high school or find a job were all bigger predictors of drug use in young adulthood than marijuana use during adolescence, says study researcher Karen Van Gundy, who is a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire.

She adds that the findings have implications for policymakers on the front lines in the war on drugs.

"If we overly criminalize behaviors like marijuana use among teens, this could interfere with opportunities for education and employment later on, which, in turn, could be creating more drug use," she tells WebMD.

Marijuana's Gateway Effect Goes Away
Van Gundy says she did not set out to disprove the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug when she and co-researcher Cesar J. Rebellon examined survey data from 1,300 mostly male Hispanic, white, and African-American young adults who attended south Florida public schools in the 1990s. The participants were followed from enrollment in the sixth or seventh grade until they reached their late teens or early 20s.

"Most of the previous research has examined early drug use among people with serious drug problems," she says. "These people do tend to progress from alcohol and marijuana use to other drugs."

When the teens in the study were followed forward into young adulthood, however, a different picture emerged.

"We were somewhat surprised to find the gateway effect wasn't that strong during the transition to adulthood," Van Gundy says. "It really didn't matter if someone used marijuana or not as a teen."

Specifically, the study found illicit drug abuse in young adulthood to be much more closely linked to stress during the teen years and whether or not the young adults were employed.

"Assuming and occupying conventional roles, such as 'worker,' may close the marijuana gateway by modifying and redirecting substance use trajectories," the researchers write.

The Fight Against Drugs
The findings suggest anti-drug efforts aimed at keeping kids in school and providing employment opportunities may have the biggest positive impact on drug use in adulthood, Van Gundy says.

Urban sociologist and drug-use researcher Lesley Reid agrees.

An associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Reid's research has focused on the gateway effect of so-called club drugs like ecstasy and cocaine among heavy drug users in their 20s.

She says most of these heavy users do start with alcohol and marijuana and progress to harder drugs.

"Obviously, we don't see this age effect among these heavy users," she tells WebMD. "But in the general population most people do outgrow behaviors like drug use and other delinquent behaviors."

'Gateway' Pioneer Critical of Study
But Columbia University sociologist Denise B. Kandel, PhD, whose research early in the decade found marijuana to be a gateway drug, calls the new research highly flawed and the conclusions "ill founded."

She tells WebMD that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to properly test the hypothesis that marijuana is a gateway drug.

Kandel does not disagree with the conclusion that social position in young adulthood plays a big role in drug use during this time. But she says the researchers fail to consider the potential impact of early marijuana use on social position.

"Using marijuana as a teen can certainly have an impact on whether or not someone fails to graduate from high school or gets a job," she says. "And this increases the risk of persistent illicit drug use."


Supporters of “The Gateway Theory”
With all the readily available evidence to debunk “The Gateway Theory”, you would think that only crackpots like Drug Free Australia (DFA) would keep pushing this farce. But this is the scary part - many officials funded by the public purse continue to cite “The Gateway Theory” as a fact. How can police ministers, police chiefs, politicians etc. continue this lie when our very own National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) don’t support it? NCPIC aren’t exactly without bias themselves but at least they acknowledge that “The Gateway Theory” is dubious at best.

Most people who use illegal drugs, like heroin or amphetamine, first used drugs like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. These substances, but most usually cannabis, are seen as a 'gateway' to the use of other, more dangerous drugs. However, the vast majority of people who do use cigarettes, alcohol or cannabis never use other illicit drugs. For example, while the majority of heroin users have used cannabis, only around 4% of cannabis users have used heroin.

Below is a collection of quotes from people or groups who support the “gateway” myth. You may notice that most of them are paid by you via your taxes.

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to the available literature on cannabis and the issues arising from cannabis use today, including: a description of the drug and its use; the increased potency of cannabis in the market; cannabis as a “gateway” to harder drug use; the issues of dependence and withdrawal; the significant cannabis harms on mental health, brain function and development, and physical conditions such as cancer; and, the problems encountered when trying to quit cannabis and the generally poor outcomes today.

It does cause psychosis, it does destroy families and it is a gateway drug to heavier use.

For many young people, cannabis can be used as a ‘gateway’ drug into more dangerous illicit drugs, with most heroin and cocaine users first experimenting with cannabis and research showing regular cannabis users are 140 times more likely to advance to stronger drugs than people who had not tried cannabis.

Amongst drug users, cannabis is very widely recognised as having been their gateway drug into heavier drugs.

Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs

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

I look forward to the next session of Parliament, because then I will not have to listen to the hypocrisy of the Hon. Richard Jones in continuing to berate tobacco use while condoning the use of the world's greatest gateway drug, marijuana.
--Malcolm Jones MP (Dec 2002)

Marijuana is a gateway drug

Ample research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia and can be a gateway to harder drugs

That was not considered to be the case 30 years ago, but now it has been proven that cannabis is a gateway drug.

Targeting cannabis use as the first drug in the chain towards drug abuse (based on the ‘gateway’ theory) was also identified as a key element.

Moreover, marijuana is a “gateway” drug

Cannabis has been known and identified as a gateway drug, leading to the use of more and stronger drugs to get a greater kick

The report refers to cannabis as a gateway drug—
[…]
The long-term impact will be the use of other, stronger, quicker and equally destructive drugs such as heroin, amphetamines and ecstasy.

This has a lifelong impact on their families, it has an impact on crimes that are committed as illicit drugs are used, especially where it is a gateway drug, and it has an impact because of the sheer cost involved in caring for someone with schizophrenia through their life.

Cannabis is also known to be a gateway drug. Multiple studies have shown that the use of cannabis on an ongoing basis creates the risk of abuse of other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

About 40 per cent think cannabis is always addictive, and one in five said it is always a gateway to harder drugs. 

The other obvious argument is that in America, 80 per cent of marijuana users go on to using cocaine. So it is clearly a gateway drug.


Related Articles

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Qld Politicians Endorse Kooky DFA Cannabis Report

When a government committee wants to conduct an enquiry based on a report, it is usually wise to do some digging into the source of that report. One major thing to watch out for is the credibility of the report’s author/s and if they happen to be dubious then you have a problem before you even start. It should be especially alarming, if the dubious source is a group of evangelists, anti-drug nutters, religious right fundamentalists or Drug Free Australia (DFA). In this case, the alarm bells should be deafening!!! Evangelists ... tick. Anti-drug nutters ... tick.  Religious right fundamentalists ... tick. Drug Free Australia ... tick. Waste of time ... tick.


MEDIA RELEASE
Addressing Cannabis-Related Harm In Queensland

A parliamentary committee is seeking the views of people in Queensland on the most effective ways to address cannabis-related harm.
The Social Development Committee is conducting an inquiry that will examine the risks associated with cannabis use and strategies to reduce
the level of use.

Ms Lindy Nelson-Carr MP, Chair of the committee said:
“Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug in Australia with one third of Australians aged 14 years and older having used cannabis at some point
in their lives.
“There is mounting evidence that cannabis use is associated with serious health risks and that the risks are particularly significant for young people.
“The starting point for the inquiry is the Cannabis: suicide, schizophrenia and other ill-effects research paper published last year by Drug Free
Australia. That paper highlighted a range of physical and mental health harms associated with cannabis and made eleven recommendations
aimed at reducing the level of use.

“The committee will examine the latest evidence about the risks associated with cannabis, particularly the risks to a user’s mental and
physical health; the risk of addiction; and the risk of cannabis acting as a gateway to other harmful substances. It will also consider how these risks
are influenced by factors such as the age of first use; the frequency of use; and the potency of the cannabis.
“The committee will then use this evidence to identify appropriately targeted strategies to reduce the level of cannabis use in the community,
focussing particularly on the role of schools, public health campaigns and law enforcement.”

Interested individuals and organisations are invited to make written submissions by Friday 23 April 2010.
An issues paper providing information about the inquiry and how to make a submission is available online at www.parliament.qld.gov.au/sdc or by
contacting committee staff on (07) 3406 7230.

For further information contact: Ms Lindy Nelson-Carr MP
Chair, Social Development Committee

Social Development
Committee
Chair
Ms Lindy Nelson-Carr MP
Deputy Chair
Mr Mark McArdle MP
Members
Ms Ros Bates MP
Mr Michael Choi MP
Mrs Liz Cunningham MP
Ms Mandy Johnstone MP
Mrs Desley Scott MP

*Guidelines and full details here

I remember reading about Queensland independent, Peter Wellington MP when he put forward this proposal to parliament. Little did he know that promoting a DFA report instantly put him in the running as a BucketHead of the Year nominee. His impressive ability to be obtuse while basing his research solely on one report from a crackpot fundamentalist group along with acquiring his limited and flimsy knowledge of drug related issues from the CourierMail, ACA and the Today show, earned him a runner up award in the Most Useless Initiative In 2009 category. Congratulations Pete.

He said the report showed “irrefutable” evidence there was a connection for many people between cannabis/marijuana use and mental illness.

What concerns me is that so many people in our community seem to have the view that marijuana use is not a problem. They view it as a recreational drug which is not a problem and that everyone does it.
[...]
The report has frightening revelations, and mental illness is a tsunami about to erupt
--Peter Wellington MP (ind.) Member for Nicklin.

Arhh, that old doomsday prediction that the sky is going to fall in and society is about to crumble under the weight of the latest major drug problem. It was pot and LSD in the 1960s, heroin and PCP in the 1970s, Cocaine and everything in the 1980s, ecstasy and speed in the 1990s and in the 2000s it’s heroin, pot, meth, ecstasy, methadone, pot, heroin, oxycondone, pot, ketamine, ecstasy, GBH, cocaine, mephedrone and pot again. The sky remains firmly in tact.

Drug Free Australia (DFA)
DFA are notorious for releasing hardline, anti-drug reports and were a major contributor to The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. They strongly oppose harm minimisation and favour Zero Tolerance drug policies like the US and Sweden. The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) in Kings Cross is one of their favourite targets and they produced the report, The Case for Closure in an attempt to discredit the program. Like all DFA reports and research papers, it was debunked by facts, totally ignored by the medical industry, laughed at by the scientific  community and rejected by AOD and welfare groups. Not surprisingly though, it did get the attention of the babbling Toad-Boy, Piers Akerman. And everyone knows that once the Toad-Boy puts his weight behind something[insert scary image here], then without doubt, that something must be some idiotic, right wing agenda. Like their current report, The Case for Closure was authored by DFA members, religious fundamentalists and other hardline anti-drug zealots. Authors of The Case for Closure include:

Dr Joe Santamaria (previously Department Head of Community Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne)
Dr Stuart Reece (Addiction Medicine specialist, Brisbane)
Dr Lucy Sullivan (Social Researcher formerly of the Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney) 
Dr Greg Pike, (Director of Southern Cross Bio-ethics Institute, Adelaide)
Mr Gary Christian, (Welfare industry Senior Manager, Sydney). 

If some of these names seem familiar or send a chill up your spine, it’s probably because of their much publicised disproval of harm minimisation, their background in loopy religious cults or accusations of causing multiple deaths through dodgy treatment programs. This group is lovingly known as The Adams Family.

So what about their latest report, Cannabis: suicide, schizophrenia and other ill-effects

This was announced yesterday. For those who don't know, Drug Free Australia are a bunch of anti scientific religious loonies, and their propaganda has formed the basis for this inquiry. The recommendations so far include drug testing school students, and "police blitzes" on cannabis users every three months for two years - whatever that means... Frightening stuff. I'd strongly encourage individuals from Bluelight to submit your opinions. 

The report is very much standard fare for DFA. Full of debunked myths, useless initiatives and pleas for a drug free world. Among the claims from DFA is several old bugbear of theirs, increased cannabis potency, the gateway theory, cannabis is addictive and of course, links to mental health. And their recommendations are just as silly. They include: running police blitzes every three months for a two year period, targeting users and potential users, drug testing in schools, forcing drug councillors to adapt their ideology, anti-cannabis propaganda campaigns, tougher penalties and interventions.

Each year as science unravels more facts about cannabis, DFA and other drug warriors have to look for new issues to push or they switch their focus to capitalise on the current concerns of the public. But this strategy is getting old and just claiming to be Australia’s peak body on drug issues, is sounding somewhat empty. In the past, many, many experts have pulled apart DFA claims with links to well known and respected researchers. In an effort to gain some credibility and to appear “scientific”, DFA have resorted to producing “research papers” and reports also. The problem is that they often link to sources that have been regularly challenged for their accuracy, methodology and especially their agenda.  Many of these referenced studies have been commissioned by the US government or anti-drug organisations to further the propaganda and support for the US "War on Drugs". Like we are seeing in the climate change debate, there is always some scientific body that will use statistical misdirection and junk science to push an agenda based on conservative ideology.

Reefer Madness
In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in the US which made cannabis illegal. The world soon followed. The events that surrounded the new law were as farcical as they get and not based on any scientific data or logic. It was purely based on ideology, greed and racism. It was one year after the film, Reefer Madness was released.

There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.
[...]
Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.
[...]
Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men

Harry J. Anslinger was the first director of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Aslinger’s constant attack on cannabis was racial motivated by his hate of Mexicans and African Americans, and supported by large industrialists who feared that cannabis/hemp would effect their company profits. The large pharmaceutical companies didn’t want a “medicine” that potential customers could grow in their backyard and media mogul, William Hearst had invested heavily in the timber industry which serviced his newspaper empire with paper from wood chips. Hearst also hated Mexicans and his newspapers regularly wrote about the evil Mexicans and their killer drug called marihuana. 

Children of addicts are said to be inferior; in parts some of India, where hashish has long been used to excess, whole communities are imbecilic and morally degraded!
--American Scholar Phi Beta Kappa (1938)

I’d rather see my children up against a wall and see them shot down before my eyes than to know that any one of them was going to be a drug(marijuana) slave!
--Levi G. Nutt  - Head of the Narcotics Division of the US Treasury Dept as quoted in Hearst newspapers nationwide (1929)


The Gateway Theory
One of the main claims in the DFA report is that cannabis use leads to hard drugs. This is called The Gateway Theory and was first suggested in the 1930s by dubious drug warrior and Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Aslinger.  Back then it was known as the stepping stone theory and was rejected from day one by the American Medical Association. Since then it’s been debunked dozens of times.

In contrast, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy’s “2008 Marijuana Sourcebook” clearly states that recent research supports the gateway hypothesis, specifically that “its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine”. 

Just because most users of other illicit drugs have also tried cannabis, it is not evidence that pot is a “gateway” to the use of more dangerous drugs. I remember when I was young, being told that cannabis will make you want to try something harder, in an attempt to discourage the use of drugs. This might be suitable advice for a parent to their 12 year old child but certainly not for so called professionals claiming it is a fact. Every time I ask a pot smoker if weed makes them want to try “something harder” I get a blank stare like I’m an idiot. The argument from supporters of The Gateway Theory is a case study into drug warrior logic - since most users of harder drugs started out smoking pot, then pot must lead to harder drugs. I have a different theory - since most users of harder drugs started out drinking milk, then milk must lead to harder drugs. A friend of mine attributes it to Corn Flakes and Mrs Wright blames alcohol. My friend might be right though ... nearly 100% of drug addicts in Australia started out eating Corn Flakes. Anyway, if cannabis leads to hard drugs, why isn’t there the same amount of junkies as there is pot smokers?

Ironically though, it’s the current laws that expose cannabis users to harder drugs. Although, cannabis itself doesn’t make users want to try other drugs, the illegality of it drives sales underground where dealers will often sell a variety of drugs as well as cannabis. It’s this situation that helps to generate more cannabis users trying harder drugs, much to the delight of The Gateway Theory supporters. 

Health Problems
Like most DFA papers, the use of cherry picking data and misdirection is used extensively throughout their latest report. For example, most of the mental health problems are relevant to people under the age of 21 or chronic abusers, not the majority of cannabis users. 

The research team found that the chronic use of cannabis during adolescence – a critical period of ongoing brain development – slowed psychomotor speed, led to poorer complex attention, verbal memory and also planning ability. Perhaps, most startlingly, these impacts continued after one month’s abstinence from cannabis use. 

Not separating susceptible young users from adults and moderate users from heavy abusers is misleading because most cannabis users do so in moderation and will not experience any of the main problems suggested by DFA. Less than 1 percent of the population smoke cannabis on a daily basis. Cannabis is not addictive and it’s rare to experience any withdrawal symptoms but those who do often compare it to giving up coffee. Using drugs including alcohol and cannabis is not a good idea for young people who have developing brains. The evidence clearly shows this. Unfortunately, DFA rarely make this distinction when demonising cannabis and much of their findings is based on young people under 21. Exaggeration, not distinguishing between age groups and focussing on the worst case scenario is common practice for anti-drug buffoons and DFA are no exception. 

It is undeniable that cannabis affects the brain, and affects the brain’s functioning adversely. Conclusive evidence shows that heavy marijuana use for five years or more may impair memory and slow cognitive function with specific research completed on impaired driving ability.

There is no conclusive evidence that cannabis causes lasting psychological problems or mental illness in adults without having a predisposition to, or a family history of mental health disorders. Cannabis does produce temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, information processing and effects short-term memory. But this can be misleading as any effect on short-term memory disappears when you are no longer under the influence of cannabis. It isn’t a permanent loss of your short term memory capabilities as suggested. Some cannabis users experience psychological distress which may include feelings of panic, anxiety and paranoia. This can be alarming and also a great selling point for anti-cannabis pundits, but the effects are only temporary. There is a lot of talk about cannabis causing schizophrenia but for an average user, this is simply not true. Again, only those adults with a predisposition to, or a family history of mental health disorders will show signs of schizophrenia. In fact, the effects of cannabis only mimick the symptoms of schizophrenia and these disappear after the effects of the cannabis wear off.

Marijuana leads to homosexuality . . . and therefore to AIDS
--US Drug Czar Carlton Turner (1986)

There have been hundreds of studies into mental illness and cannabis but many of them were funded or organised by groups with an agenda. Groups like the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and other US government bodies, along with dubious anti-drug organisations like Drug Free America Foundation(DFAF), Foundation for a Drug Free World(FDFW) and The Church of Scientology are notorious for commissioning biased and misleading reports. Drug Free Australia (DFA) are simply the local equivalent and follow the same strategies as their international counterparts. The report, Cannabis: suicide, schizophrenia and other ill-effects by DFA lists many sources but just as important is what they leave out. In particular, a 2009 report from Keele University in the UK caused a major upset for drug warriors. After exhaustive research, they reported that although adult cannabis use had increased over 400% since the late 1980s, cases of mental illness had not increased with it and actually declined slightly. Interestingly, cannabis use for under 18’s increased over 3 times the adult rate which made the case for cannabis causing mental illness even less likely. 

DFA also raises the issue of physical harm from cannabis and concludes that it can cause great damage to your lungs much like tobacco. What they leave out is the frequency of cannabis use. Whilst cigarette smokers may have 10 to 50 a day and inhale a dozen times or so for each cigarette, a regular cannabis smoker may inhale only 2-20 times a week. That’s an enormous difference ... 120-600(cigarettes) vs. 2-20(cannabis) puffs per week. Dope smokers tend to hold in the smoke a bit longer than cigarette smokers and bong smokers certainly inhaled much harder but the number of puffs

As you can see, when using an average cannabis smoker for comparisons, the scare factor and the perceived harms diminish greatly. Exaggeration, worse case scenarios and scare tactics are a key part of anti-drug rhetoric. Another common tactic is to dress up a report so it appears as a legitimate scientific paper. In an attempt to make this report more credible, a vast number of references were added throughout. In fact, there is 14 pages of References And Suggested Additional Reading listed at the end. Yep, 14 pages!

Cannabis is well absorbed through inhaling its smoke or its inclusion in cakes or cookies and is very slowly metabolised by the body as it becomes deeply absorbed and entrenched in the body’s fatty tissues, with the brain a primary target. The complete elimination of a single dose from a user’s system may take up to thirty days (Cabral, 1989) and its acute effects can last several hours. In the case of chronic and frequent use, cannabis concentrations accumulate and can cause a chronic intoxication and dependency


Drug Testing
Why do DFA so rigourously support drug testing at school and the workplace? 

The early 2003 Michigan study compared the rates of drug use, as measured by Monitoring the Future, in schools that did some type of drug testing to schools that did not. The researchers controlled for various demographic differences and found across the board that drug testing was ineffective; there was no statistically significant difference in the number of users at a school that tested for drugs and a similar school that didn't. 

The White House criticized the Michigan study for failing to look at the efficacy of random testing. So, Yamaguchi, Johnston, and O'Malley added the random element and ran their study again, this time adding data for the year 2002. The follow-up study, published later in 2003, tracked 94,000 middle- and high-school students. It reached the same results as its precursor. Even if drug testing is done randomly and without suspicion, it's not associated with a change in the number of students who use drugs in any category. 
The Michigan follow-up found one exception: In schools that randomly tested students, 12th-graders were more likely to smoke marijuana.

and...

Data suggest that drug testing, as practiced in recent years in American secondary schools, does not prevent or inhibit student drug use. The two forms of drug testing that are generally assumed to be most promising for reducing student drug use - random testing applied to all students, and testing of athletes - did not produce encouraging results.

Why don’t these studies get a mention? 

Is it strange that the main report cited by DFA for their support of drug testing, Elements of a Successful School-Based Student Drug Testing Program is authored by DFA associate, Robert DuPont? DuPont happens to also be the ex US Drug Czar whose department is infamous for crooked studies and distorted statistics. The US Drug Czar is also the driving force behind the "War on Drugs".

DuPont has been accused of biased reporting and even once said, "I can't quite get the argument that [drug testing] wouldn't work". Does that make his research less credible? DuPont’s tecniques for gathering data certainly points that way. Instead of collecting information from students and analyzing it, the study asks the administrators opinion on how effective they think the program is. Not really very scientific but good enough for DFA.

Apart from being an anti-drug zealot, what else does DuPont have to gain from drug testing? Dupont is a partner at Bensinger, DuPont & Associates but denies his company has anything to do drug testing. Yet on the Bensinger, DuPont & Associates website,it says, “BDA offers a range of products designed to help employers establish and manage workplace drug and alcohol testing programs”. BDA have the contract to prescreen the staff of the US Post Office for illegal drug use. It is the biggest prescreening program in the world. Robert DuPont is also the chairman of the scientific advisory board for Psychemedics, the world's premier drug hair testing company. 

He's now working on an evaluation of eight schools. The results won't be ready soon, but let's venture a prediction: Random drug testing will come out looking good. 

The pressing issue then is why do DFA support school drug testing when it doesn’t reduce drug use? The Jesuit Social Services released a report that rejected any benefit from school drug testing as did the Australian National Council on Drugs. In 2006, DFA associate, Anne Bressington tried to introduce a bill into SA that would require all students over 14 to be drug tested twice a year but it was rejected by The South Australian Association of Independent Schools and the Health Minister. 

What is known though is that it leads kids trying more dangerous that aren’t detectable. It also leads to a loss of trust of school authorities. DFA have been pushing drug testing for many years now but just won’t let it go. Hmmm.

Prohibition
Most people know that cannabis is not a harmless drug. However, most of the problems associated with cannabis or in fact all drugs, are because of prohibition and the strategies supported by groups like DFA. 

Take mental illness for one. The cannabis which seems to cause most harm for people is that where there is a high percentage of THC and a low percentage of CBD (one of cannabis’s other main compounds). Cannabis that has a pretty even split between THC and CBD can often be beneficial for people with a propensity to psychosis and it seems the CBD element is what attracts vulnerable people to cannabis in the first place.

However, in a prohibitionist world there are great financial incentives for gowing THC rich cannabis – of which Skunk is the most famous variety. Skunk grows quickly and loves hydroponic conditions. It also sells for more because users think that the strongest stuff is the best stuff.

What all this means is that prohibition causes skunk to be grown and consumed more than it would do in a market economy and that skunk is the very worst thing we could foist upon heavy or young cannabis users.

We are seeing more evidence of this every year as countries like Portugal, The Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Mexico, The Czech Republic etc. move away from the prohibitionist model and turn to science and evidence based policies for answers. Even the US who are infamous for leading the charge on the "War on Drugs" are rapidly decriminalising cannabis and legalising medical marijuana in a growing number of states. Why have DFA decided now to spend their limited resources and precious time on a shaky, flawed report? What’s the point of it and who pays for it?

This work has been supported by funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Drug Free Australia Ltd or the Australian Government. 


The Social Development Committee
One issue that hasn’t been addressed is, who are the members of The Social Development Committee? Will they be unbiased and balanced in their enquiry? The very fact that they agreed to use a DFA research paper should be sending off alarm bells. Many of the members have previously made their position well known that they support the rhetorical  “Tough on Drugs” strategy with none of them showing any real understanding of the drug issue. See how many drug myths you can spot.

Particularly at Gold Coast Hospital and Logan, where there are instances of people on crack and ice -- they are superhuman when they become psychotic.

Committee member and Opposition Spokesman For Health, Mark McArdle has been quoted several times misrepresenting the facts as well as down playing the alcohol problem as secondary to illicit drugs. There is no excuse in 2010 to be playing politics with a health issue as serious as drug use. The effects of alcohol on the community exceeds those of illicit drugs a hundred fold which makes a mockery of McArdle’s views. The science is readily available to anyone who wants to find it but for an opposition health minister, it should be mandatory.

To date we have focussed largely on alcohol being the cause. This is not right, as drugs play an equally devastating role in street violence.

Blaming drugs for “street violence” exposes Mark McArdle’s ignorance of the subject. The effects of most illicit drugs is not responsible for the bulk of street violence and in fact causes almost none . Alcohol clearly has the honour as being the most violent drug on earth. But the business of illicit drugs does play a major part due solely to the very laws pushed for by McArdle. There’s a major distinction between being violent while under the influence and drug gangs fighting it out in the streets to settle drug disputes. Back in 2008, McAdle was also a huge supporter of re-classifying MDMA (ecstasy) as a schedule one drug. The law increased the maximum penalty for ecstasy offences to 25 years but it was not just targeted at dealers but users as well. I find it hard to grasp that an opposition health minister would be so supportive of increased penalties for users. But the most obvious flaw is that MDMA poses very little risk to society in reality and the harms are extremely exaggerated. Surely someone who wants to have the Queensland health portfolio should know this. Will his ignorance and personal views affect The Social Development Committee report?

The high incidence of illicit drug taking and the now well-known effects of drugs such as cannabis, amphetamines, ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, ice et cetera have resulted in a huge increase in mental health problems

Both of the major political parties in Queensland, do not have a very good record for pragmatic drug policies and both have members on the Social Development Committee. Most of them have made some remarkable comments about drugs usually based on popular myths or in an attempt to appear “Tough on Drugs”. Although they might not be as brazenly stupid as say, Mike Horan they do regularly contradict the latest scientific evidence. 

The LNP has already signaled its tough-on-crime approach by introducing a Private Members’ Bill in Parliament this week to take out the sentencing principle of jail as a last resort from the Juvenile Justice Act.

Desley Scott, member for Woodridge and member of The Social Development Committee was a vocal supporter of banning drug paraphernalia although without them, people may catch HIV/AIDS, HCV and other blood borne diseases. They also prevent breathing in dangerous chemicals found in home made bongs. It’s really bizarre that these items would be banned when there is no proof that they increase the use of drugs. Such mindless decisions effectively put the lives of thousands of people in jeopardy.

Quite some years ago while visiting an outer Brisbane suburban shopping centre I was surprised and shocked—maybe because of my sheltered existence—to see in the window of a shop a large display of bongs, pipes et cetera
[...]
so I am very pleased to see the adoption of any measures[banning drug paraphernalia] that may reduce drug taking.
--Desley Scott MP - Health And Other Legislation Amendment Bill (Hansard) - May 2007

Are Queensland politicians too ignorant to be making important decisions about a subject as complex as drug use? Apart from the carnage caused by ignorant political decisions around the world concerning drugs, there is the issue of selfishly promoting a “Tough on Drugs” policy because it is often a vote winner. This raises that old conundrum -  if a politician supports current drug policies because they really believe they are effective then they are just too thick to be making important decisions for millions of people but if they know that current drug policies are failing miserably yet still push a “Tough on Drugs” approach then they are blatant liars and should never be trusted, especially in a position of power.

She[Police Minister Judy Spence] says the detection shows police are successful in keeping drugs off Queensland streets.
--ABC (June 2008)

A recent survey by McNair Ingenuity Research has claimed Queensland as the drug state of Australia. If drug policies over the last 60 years were even mildly successful, there would be a small decrease in drug use and supply. But the fact is, drug use has increased at least 1000% since then with drugs being cheaper, stronger and easier to get. Why Queensland politicians just keep applying the same tired, old strategies needs to be examined carefully. Face it, no one would keep their job if they kept suggesting the same plan that had seen losses increase every year for 6 decades. In fact, the company would have gone broke unless they tried an alternative. The difference is that we are talking about people’s lives.

That is policy nonsense to suggest we'd be going there. In actual fact, that is the antithesis of what we believe in when it comes to the issue of addressing the scourge of drugs.

Both parties are blindly anti-cannabis and consider it as dangerous as hard drugs like heroin. This puts them at odds with a changing world community that is not only relaxing cannabis laws but using it for the treatment of many illnesses. And since cannabis is at the heart of the DFA report, the end result is not looking very promising.