Showing posts with label WA Liberal Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WA Liberal Party. Show all posts

Monday, 30 November 2009

WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA

This is getting monotonous! As I was reading through the Kings Cross Times, I discovered yet another idiotic comment from a WA Liberal Party politician. The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC, member for the South Metropolitan Region has replied to a letter from a concerned citizen about the proposed legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003. Whilst reading the reply, I couldn’t help but wonder if this guy actually knew what he was writing about. Apart from sounding like a media release, I realised that every point he raised was untrue. How could such a thing happen in 2009? Was he fabricating the whole letter or simply so stupid, he didn’t know any better? Either way, it’s another clear example of how so many public officials are not fit to hold office and represent the people.

Reply from WA politician Hon Nick Goiran MLC to a letter re repeal of the Cannabis Control Act 2003:

21 October 2009

Dear Mr X

CANNABIS CONTROL ACT 2OO3

Thank you for your letter regarding Premier Colin Barnett's announcement to introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003.

The State Government recognises that illicit drug use is a significant problem which affects the lives of users, their families, friends and the wider WA community and cannabis-related legislation is sending a clear anti-drugs message to the community.

Research shows that cannabis use can lead to a mass of health and mental health problems including respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia.
Drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society. l have personally seen how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction. Illegal drugs ruin lives, shatter families and can create a downfall on our community foundation. We should seek to protect our fellow West Australians and these initiatives will crackdown on the plague of illicit drugs in our State.

From what you have written, you support a policy of 'Harm Minimisation'- a strategy to ameliorate the adverse consequences of drug use while drug use continues. I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use, a message I do not espouse. Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure.

Accordingly, l strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use and look forward to voting in favour of the proposed legislation.

Yours sincerely

Hon Nick Goiran MLC

Member for the South Metropolitan Region

The letter opens with the standard claim that they are sending a message to the community that drugs are dangerous. Only those who are already anti-drugs ever take notice of an anti-drugs message e.g. parents, anti-drug groups, fellow politicians and moral crusaders. To the rest of us, the message is clear ... more wasted money, more useless dribble and more mindless policies.

Goiran then explains to Mr X that research has shown that cannabis use can lead to a “mass” of health and mental health problems. They include respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia. Not a whole lot of problems compared to other dangerous drugs like alcohol or crack. Where’s the addiction, damage to vital organs, psychosis, overdose and death? The listed problems reek like an extract from a NCPIC brochure or a Daily Telegraph article that exagerate the effects using worst case scenarios. The letter conveniently ignores the fact that most cannabis users are very moderate users and rarely have cannabis health problems.

The list of health and mental health problems:

Respiratory problems: Hasn’t Nick heard of vaporisers or consuming something orally? As for the average cannabis smoker who maybe smokes a few times a week, the intake of smoke is tiny.

Cancer risk: I assume that Nick means Lung cancer? I say that because cannabis is showing that it actual helps prevent some cancers.
A major 2006 study compared the effects of tobacco and Cannabis smoke on the lungs. The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer," while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day. It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer. THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."
-Wikipedia

Abnormalities in reproductive functioning:
The effects of cannabis on reproductive functioning are uncertain. The claim that cannabis impairs male and female reproductive functioning in humans has very little support in the scientific world. Although it is wise for pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs, the bulk of scientific evidence indicates that cannabis has very few adverse effects on the developing fetus.

Schizophrenia: Sorry Nick but cannabis doesn’t usually cause schizophrenia for the average user but might bring it on in those who have a family history of mental illness. The police would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users from ever using again to prevent one case of schizophrenia in those who have no links to the illness.

Following on, Goiran explains that “drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society” and claims he has observed for himself “how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction”. What he leaves out is that the proposed laws will only make matters worse. But annoying things like facts are not a problem for Goiran and he proudly declares that “I strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use”. In one sentence, Goiran dismisses years of careful research and precise scientific studies and overrides it with his own Drugs are Bad, mmkay stupidity.

If there is any doubt left that the Hon. Nick Goiran is as thick as Colin Barnett’s forehead, then this statement will remove all doubt:
Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure
-The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC

It may only be his view but this man is supposed to represent the public. Making ridiculous comments like this is unacceptable and just further proof that Western Australia is packed with Liberal Party dickheads. And I mean dickheads of the highest degree. Harm Minimisation saves thousands of lives and gives hope and some much needed respect to those who have a drug problem. It’s success has been hailed around the world as more and more countries adopt it as official drug policy. I would love to know why it has failed? Stating that “I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use” might help explain Goiran’s logic or lack thereof. Not being able to understand the subtlety between condoning drug use and accepting the reality that people have and always will use drugs regardless of laws, highlights serious incompetence for someone in Goiran’s position. In fact, it’s a disgrace. If Nick Goiran was employed by the private sector, he would promptly be sacked and his reputation shredded. If ever a wrong message was being sent to our kids then this is it - the facts aren’t important for political decisions. The WA Libs have a history of pumping out anti-drug rhetoric which is always void of the truth and evidence. From ‘Dippy’ Donna Faragher to Luke Simpkins, from Christian Porter to the Premier himself, the spin is thick and the bullshit aplenty.

I can understand how some governments might overlook scientific research and evidence but to make contrary claims by lying is abhorrent. Remember British scientist, Prof. David Nutt who was sacked as head of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for telling the truth? The furore that followed had many hammering the government for ignoring scientific evidence about drugs and instead using the drug scheduling list for political means. The UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C drug back up to class B citing potency and mental health problems as the main reasons. The problem was, the ACMD had researched these issues and found them to have little effect on the nation and that harsher laws would be no deterrent at all. Does all this sound familiar? Maybe like Colin Barnett repealing the state’s cannabis laws for dubious, political reasons? Watch the clip below and note how many lies are told by Barnett which are then debunked by a medical expert.




How could someone stare into a camera and just blurt out so much crap? Surely they know that any claims can be checked by viewers within minutes? Any normal person would cringe and then apologise for being so arrogant and uninformed but the Barney Rubble look-a-like just marches on like a lobotomised lemming. A comedy writer could have a field day with this - a cross between Yes Minister, The Office, The Hollowmen and The Flintstones.

The days are over where we took for granted what an elected government told us. It ended when modern conservatives like neocons and the rabid right took power in the 1970s to the 1990s. They believe it’s okay to lie to the people if it’s in their best interest and helps achieve the government’s agenda. But those policies based on Game Theory didn’t factor in the internet giving access to so much factual information. Are Barnett and co. so delusional that they still believe the public will accept their views as gospel if they lie? Or are they just luddites that got lucky?

The Kings Cross Times that originally printed the letter from Nick Goiran also mentioned that a mystery female WA Liberal MP and a cohort were rude to retired Seattle police commissioner Dr Norm Stamper, who was visiting Australia for a series of speeches on drug prohibition. An article by Dr Stamper in the Huffington Post wrote about being ambushed by this mystery MP before even walking through the front door for a prearranged meeting. According to Dr Stamper, he was berated and talked down to while the MP and cohort continually interrupted to “educate” him about how dangerous he was to Western Australia. Imagine what Dr Stamper thought when some rabid right-wing redneck was telling him, a retired police commissioner and ex drug cop, about the drug situation and how wrong he is. Hmph! Those crazy WA Libs!

Some final questions: I wonder what Dr Mal Washer, the Liberal MP for Moore, thinks of all this? After all, he is one of the Co-Chairs of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. I wonder if all the WA Libs think the same way? The whole party can’t be that stupid ... can they? And finally: how are tougher cannabis laws going to reduce the state’s drug problem. Only 3% of cannabis users come in contact with the law and we know that harsher penalties doesn’t deter drug use. Why don’t the WA Libs comprehend this when the rest of the world are wising up?

Related Articles:
Cannabis/Schizophrenia Link 'Minimal' -- UK Study
WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981
The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier



Friday, 16 October 2009

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

An update on the proposed new cannabis laws for WA.

Although the currently elected Liberals were ecstatic and clapped loudly for Colin Barnett’s plans it seems the public are not too happy to turn back the clock on the state’s cannabis laws. An article from PerthNow has attracted a whopping 544 comments to date with 99% of readers hammering Barnett’s new policies. This is the most commented article I have ever seen on any News Ltd. website. Also it’s not one of the main newspaper sites for Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane but Perth. Murdoch’s newspapers are notoriously aimed at conservatives and red necks which explains the negative feedback usually shown towards liberal drug issues. Why then, are readers of PerthNow raising so much opposition to tougher cannabis laws?

PerthNow had a poll that asked the readers, Does WA need tougher laws governing marijuana?
Out of 2364 votes, 43% said yes, 48% said no and 8% said What day is it?

Lies, Lies and More Lies
You might want to visit the government’s website and read their media release, Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation. Beware - it contains the usual deceptive, anti-drug rhetoric that has dominated the world’s political scene for decades.

It starts with the claim that the political enemy is “Soft on Drugs”. When translated from political babble, it usually means, “smart” on drugs via an attempt to deal with the drug issue rationally and realistically. The soft-on-drugs term is dying a slow death and is still only used by those who see the public as naive enough to swallow their spin. You may recall John Howard calling everyone soft-on-drugs when they mentioned any strategy that differed to his “Tough on Drugs” mantra. Barnett concludes in his opening paragraph that the soft-on-drugs approach “has left lives ruined”. This is a lie as drug use has continued to decreased under the so called soft-on-drugs strategy. Where is the media on this? Where is the opposition disputing these claims? To the contrary, Barnett’s tough-on-drugs proposal has been shown over and over again to ruin lives . How can such a blatant lie not be picked up?

Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. 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.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

A gateway drug? The only time cannabis is a gateway drug is when users are forced underground and exposed to dealers and users of hard drugs. This happens when a government doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. But this is not what he meant. Barnett is subscribing to the old myth that cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drugs. This very claim should render the whole media release as fallacious political dribble. The gateway theory has been scientifically debunked many times over and is only used by desperate anti-drug nutters who are woefully detached from the drug issue. Even hardened anti-drug warriors have mostly given up on the gateway theory which again shows up Barnett as an out-of-touch meathead who is pushing through laws based on nothing more than his own misguided views. Where is the science and evidence behind such ridiculous claims? And again, why isn’t the media and the opposition shooting this down? Barnett is flat out lying and quoting urban myths as the basis for laws that affect millions of people is outright dangerous.

What about the claims of schizophrenia. This was ruled out last year by scientists as merely the effects of cannabis mimicking the symptoms of schizophrenia. When the effects of cannabis wore off, so did the supposed schizophrenia. Psychosis was also ruled out as being caused by cannabis except for those who have a family history of metal health problems. Barnett has lied again. For such an important health related law to be passed, you would expect that some scientific evidence be provided. The problem is that the latest evidence is completely polar to Barnett’s claims and any real attempt at providing evidence would be shot down is minutes.

The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

This statement is just not acceptable from a state premier or a representative of the people. All evidence and research has shown that tough laws and penalties have never significantly deterred overall drug use in any country. Why hasn’t someone pointed out to the government that what they believe and what is true are completely different. If they really do believe this then the Barnett government need to step down now. Western Australians should not be governed by a group so obviously stupid ... and capable of such blatant lying.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS)
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN)? Just how has it failed? The main reason cited is that only 5% of those issued with a CIN attended a drug counselling course. Under Barnett’s new Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS), anyone issued a CIRS will have to attend a Cannabis Intervention Education course or face further charges. Again, a lack of understanding from the government has cannabis users earmarked as drug addicts or needing drug counselling. This is ludicrous as cannabis causes far fewer problems for users and society as does alcohol, which is legal and freely available to adults. Cannabis is not addictive and very few people end up with a dependency problem. Alcohol on the other hand is highly addictive and over a million people are classed as problem drinkers. Wouldn’t it make more sense to force those involved in alcohol related offences to be sent to counselling?

The elephant in the room is still the unanswered question - if the current policy is working why change it? Apart from the excuse that only 5% of those issued a CIN actually go to a drug counselling class, Barnett has simply said that the previous laws are soft-on-drugs. The way I see it is that it all boils down to Barnett’s personal views and modern conservative ideology. That or the South Park send up of anti-drug warriors and their simpleton approach ... drugs are bad, mmkay. There is no actual new evidence or findings to warrant these new drug laws. If anything, new strategies should be put on trial that follow the success of the current laws. The amounts seem fine at 30 grams and 2 plants and don’t need increasing but maybe we should consider legalising the 2 home grown plants for personal use. This would certainly remove many dealers and keep users away from them. There’s a whole range of ideas that could be implemented using proper, scientific monitoring to find the right balance between public acceptability and the right to use a relatively safe drug. The benefits would include the reduction of drug dealers, crime and unnecessary criminal records.

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Should we be going back to laws drafted 28 years ago? Worldwide experience has clearly shown that drug laws from the 1980s have caused societal carnage and ruined millions of lives including many preventable deaths. To ignore these facts is downright criminal and condemns many Australians to a life of misery. The 28 year old laws are steeped in ignorance and “Just Say No” drug hysteria which might appeal to Barnett and his troupe of silly old men but they should be left to history as a reminder of what not to do.

What we knew back then is a fraction of what we know today. Science and evidence based research has replaced ideology and moral panic. The many myths created back then have been debunked or laughed off and many of the policies have been the most unsuccessful ever put into law. For a current government to try and re-establish these dangerous and failed policies should send shock waves through the community. It appears that a large percentage of Western Australians understand the ramifications of such foolish actions and will undoubtedly be heard in the next election.


Sun 11 October, 2009
Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation [link]

Portfolio: Premier

New anti-cannabis laws will mark the start of the Liberal-National Government’s fight to turn around eight years of a soft-on-drugs approach by the previous Labor government which has left lives ruined.

Premier Colin Barnett today announced the Government would this week introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003 and make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Young Offenders Act 1994, sending a clear message that the current State Government did not endorse illicit drug use.

Mr Barnett said the cannabis-related legislation was the first in a series of steps the Government would take to send a clear anti-drugs message to the community and toughen penalties for people who broke the law through drug-related offences.

According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, cannabis was the most widely used illicit drug in Western Australia with an annual usage rate of 10.8 per cent.

“The Liberal-National Government is committed to tackling both the demand and supply sides of the illicit drug problem through strong law enforcement policies, education and rehabilitation,” the Premier said.

“Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. 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.

“The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs, but we also recognise the existence of a criminal record has a serious impact on a person’s future employment prospects. At present, once a conviction is recorded, it remains on a person’s criminal record for at least 10 years.

“Under the Government’s proposed laws, a person convicted of minor cannabis possession offences will be able to apply to have a conviction spent after three years, provided they are not convicted of further offences during that period.

“This approach ensures minor drug offenders who demonstrate they are prepared to take responsibility and rehabilitate themselves are given an opportunity to turn their lives around.”

The new cannabis-related laws will:

• prosecute the possession of more than 10 grams of cannabis. This is a reduction from the previous Labor government’s stance where prosecution only occurred when it was more than 30 grams
• result in subsequent offences for possession being prosecuted as criminal offences
• prosecute people for cultivating cannabis plants. Under the previous Labor government’s regime, people could grow two cannabis plants per person, per household without facing criminal charges
• make it illegal for cannabis smoking implements to be sold to anyone, including adults. Currently it is only an offence to sell these implements to children
• increase fines for the sale of smoking implements. The new laws will allow for fines of up to $5,000 for sale to an adult and up to $10,000 for sale to a minor. Bodies corporate will be fined equivalent to five times these amounts.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS).

“The CIRS has a primary focus on education and takes a firm, yet compassionate, approach to people found to be in possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis,” Mr Barnett said.

“Under the new scheme, anyone caught will have no option but to attend a Cannabis Intervention education session within 28 days of the offence or face prosecution through the courts.

“Unlike the soft system we have inherited where people can be issued with infringement notices ad nauseam, juveniles will only be eligible for two notices and adults for one.

“After that they will be prosecuted for further offences.”

A person will not be eligible for a CIRS if they are caught cultivating or in possession of plants.

The new CIRS sessions will differ significantly from the current CIN scheme because:
offenders will not have the option of just paying the fine and avoiding the education session
if a person fails to attend the session they will be prosecuted.
This year, under the soft system the Liberal-National Government inherited from Labor, only five per cent of offenders actually participated in an education session.

The Premier said further anti-drug legislation would be introduced in coming months.

“The next steps will be to amend legislation to enable courts to impose a harsher sentence on dealers who sell or supply illicit drugs to children, irrespective of the location of the sale or supply,” he said.

“Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 will provide offences for exposing children to harm or to the danger of serious harm from the manufacture of illegal drugs, such as amphetamines, or the unlawful cultivation of illegal hydroponically-grown plants.

“The Government will also move to ban the sale of drug paraphernalia, including cocaine kits.”

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.

With the repeal of the Act, all registered Cannabis Infringement notices will be deemed ‘paid’ after they have been registered with the Fines Enforcement Registry for 12 months. This will allow police to destroy their cannabis stockpile which is retained for evidentiary purposes.

Premier's office: 9222 9475



Related Articles:
The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier

Monday, 12 October 2009

The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead

After months of threatening us that he will prove without doubt that he is a dickhead, WA Premier Colin Barnett has finally done it. Yes, Colin Barnett is now officially a first class, top notch dickhead. While we all secretly knew it as he continued with his promise to wind back the successful drug strategies of the previous government, we can now be safe in the knowledge that Barnett is indeed, a dickhead. But let’s not mince words here. Barnett is more than a dickhead, he’s a bumbling, self righteous, agenda driven, fat fuckwit.
Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.
-The Australian

At yesterday's state Liberal conference, Barnett gave a rousing speech that had fellow Libs frothing at the mouth. His “Tough on Crime” election promise was finally being given the go ahead with the introduction of several new “tough” laws “in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs”. The problem is that in his haste to be “tough” on thugs, street crime and violence, he has forgotten to tell us that it is really about cannabis. His sweeping statements about weapons and violence were intermingled with the supposed danger of cannabis. But the real reason for bringing the new stop and search laws is not about thugs and weapons but catching drug users. Imagine if he announced that WA is enacting the toughest stop and search laws in Australia to catch pot smokers?
The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett 

All the rhetoric in the world doesn’t change the fact that the effects of cannabis cause no violence on the streets, street crime nor does it make thugs out of people. That honour goes to alcohol. But this isn’t about the facts associated with cannabis use. It’s about his personal views and ideology, his political position and his inability to separate fact and fiction. For dickheads like Barnett, the real world is broken and only a conservative utopia will save mankind from moral collapse. Most of societies problems are because of drugs and a lack of “family values”. Violence, corruption and ecological carnage is secondary.
He (Colin Barnett) accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives
-The Australian

Ironically, under the current drug policy introduced by the previous government, cannabis use is declining and less people are unnecessarily given a criminal record. What is the government trying to achieve by changing the drug laws? This has never been answered by the Barnett government but instead replaced with the usual anti-drug rhetoric we have become accustomed to over the last 4 decades. It also comes at a time when the world trend of many countries is to follow science and evidence by decriminalising or considering the legalisation of cannabis. Arguments against cannabis have been greatly diminished in the last 12 months with research showing that links to mental health problems are non existent for those without pre-existing conditions. And like the Gateway Theory, claims of today’s cannabis being 10-20 times as potent have been debunked. Even that old myth that cannabis makes users lazy and unmotivated has been disproved. The real crunch is that the legal drug alcohol is much, much more harmful and dangerous than cannabis.
We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett 

So, what is Barnett and his band of merry men going to achieve by being tough on crime? Under all the hype, there is officially only one non-drug related new law - being able to search people without a reason. But we know the real agenda for this. The “tough on crime” speech was really about cannabis. Barnett has proved how far he will go to push his misguided views onto the public. But this is not just about some fat, over paid dickhead putting in place silly laws but the serious, real world consequences of his actions. Banning drug paraphernalia will lead to some serious problems for drug users. Having access to properly made crack pipes stop the spread of blood born disease like HIV/AIDS and Hep C. Purchasing a bong will stop users making their own which can give off dangerous fumes from plastic containers. To be blunt, not having these products kill people. Lowering the amount of cannabis that someone can carry will drive up the rate of convictions. Again, normal, responsible adults are facing jail or a criminal record. The previous limit of 30 grams covered those who bought the common amount of an ounce or half an ounce. Now, half an ounce will put them just 4 grams above the legal limit. This of course means that a cannabis user has to visit an illegal dealer more often and this leaves them more vulnerable to being caught. Even with the 10 year limit on your criminal record for minor drug charges being dropped to 3 years, the new laws still increase the risk of being labelled a criminal. Those caught with less than the new 10 gram threshold are forced into treatment whether they need it or not. This is an old trick used in the US to give anti-cannabis groups a rubbery statistic to further their cause. For example, the latest claim from anti-drug warriors in the US is that cannabis is much more harmful than it used to be. Their evidence - most of those in treatment are now in for cannabis abuse but years ago hardly anyone came in for cannabis issues alone. What they don’t tell us is that 99% of those in treatment for cannabis abuse are involuntary patients. Yep, forced in there by the courts, family interventions and work related issues. Watch this issue arise soon in Australia.

I once asked if dickheads grow on trees in WA. We all know the answer but the trees that produce these dickheads appear to be a certain type ... politician trees. I am noticing that these trees are not just native to WA but are found all over Australia. They must just bloom early in WA.

Police Empowered For West's Drug War
The Australian
By Amanda O'Brien
October 2009


WEST Australian police will have the nation's toughest powers to stop and search people under a plan, unveiled yesterday, which removes the need for them to show any grounds for suspecting an offence.

Premier Colin Barnett said it was intolerable that people caught with weapons or drugs were being let off in court because police could not establish that there were sufficient grounds to search them.

He said legislation would be introduced within weeks to allow anyone to be stopped and searched without reason in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs.

To thunderous applause at yesterday's state Liberal conference, Australia's only Liberal Premier said law and order was a defining issue at the September 2008 election.

"I make no apologies," he said. "We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority."

Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.

He thrilled delegates by promising to also introduce legislation within days to throw out the former Labor government's contentious 2003 drug laws, which allow people to grow two cannabis plants per household without criminal charge.

He said it was a ridiculous law and any cultivation would be an offence in future.

The amount of cannabis triggering prosecution for possession would also be slashed from 30g to 10g, and selling paraphernalia such as bongs and pipes would become illegal. "It is absolutely disgraceful that, under Labor's approach, we have lottery kiosks selling bongs in Western Australia. Not any more."

He said the community had shown at the election it wanted strong laws.

The police commissioner would designate particular areas as "stop and search" zones, and the public would know where they were. Entertainment areas such as Northbridge in Perth and Fremantle were priorities.

"Police will have the right to go up to anyone they wish to and introduce a stop and search power," Mr Barnett said.

"It will not be an invasive search; it will be comparable to the sort of search and screening that takes place for any citizen getting on an aeroplane.

"We will reclaim Northbridge and other areas of entertainment and hospitality for law-abiding young people, for women to go there alone, for families and older citizens."

He said Labor had failed on law and order, and he accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives.

"The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful," he said.

Under the new laws, anyone found with more than 10g of cannabis, enough for 10 to 20 joints, would face a criminal conviction. Anyone with less than 10g would be forced to attend counselling.

In his only concession, the Premier said criminal records for minor drug offences would be expunged after three years, rather than 10, if no further offences were committed.



Related Articles:
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier


Friday, 1 May 2009

The Liberal Party on Drugs


libslogo03.gif
Early this week, the Sunday Times in WA asked Attorney General Christian Porter and his opposition counterpart, John Quigley a series of questions on law and order. The first question was whether WA cannabis laws need to be changed and why. Attorney General Christian Porter gave this disturbing answer:

It remains a top priority of the Liberal National Government to repeal Labor's soft-on-cannabis legislation. This government will not tolerate laws which sanction the use of illicit drugs, particularly drugs that have been shown to cause severe mental health issues.
-WA Attorney General Christian Porter(
PerthNow)

With the current cannabis laws in WA achieving their aims including a continuation of decreased drug use, it seems a little weird that the government would want to change them. But the phrase, “soft-on-cannabis”, exposes what’s really behind the government’s push for harsher cannabis laws ... ideology. This has opened up the WA government for legitimate criticism that they are ignoring the evidence before them and pursuing an outdated and flawed strategy based on nothing but pure fantasy. And why it “remains a top priority” must surely be a worry with so much else going on at the moment. Last week, Federal Member for Mayo and former John Howard advisor, Jamie Briggs also made some remarkable comments concerning illicit drugs:

Drugs are the No. 1 risk young people face and the Federal Government's focus on binge drinking means it is missing the problem
-Jamie Briggs - Federal Member for Mayo (
Courier-Mail)

The Liberals are still having a hard time getting over the fact that alcohol causes many more problems than all illicit drugs combined. The mindset that all drugs are evil and alcohol is just part of society is firmly intrenched in politics as it is a clear vote winner. The Rudd government needs some kudos for targeting alcohol especially for their efforts to change the drinking culture in Australia. The government has wisely focussed on a long term strategy which might take 10-20 years to take effect. It’s certainly not a shrewd political move or a vote winner and has become an easy target for the opposition who prefer the more immediate policy of appearing to be “tough on drugs”. And here lies the problem. Focussing on a failed drug policy which has never worked for any government of any country, is bound to fail again. The definition of stupidity is often cited as repeating the same old strategies over and over but expecting a different result. Sound familiar? The Rudd government isn’t much better on drug policy from what we have seen but at least they are focussing on the more serious problem of alcohol. 

Christian Porter and Jamie Briggs’ are not alone though and their inane comments about drugs are only two of many made by the Libs over the last year. Remember a newly appointed opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull coyly admitting to smoking pot whilst attending university? Remember the cheeky schoolboy grin and matter-of-fact explanation that quickly evolved into a lecture, damning those who follow in his footsteps? Did Malcolm’s sensibility suddenly become overrun with hard line, Liberal Party ideology? Did he forget for a moment that under his own parties’ “Tough on Drugs” polices, he would have never made it to where he is if he was caught smoking that bong? Who knows? I have looked back over the last year or so and discovered some many challenges from the Libs to the government about who is “toughest on drugs”. I must say that the complete avoidance of investigating a sensible, evidence based drug policy is startling. The Greens and what’s left of the Democrats have much more rational drug policies but are often damned by the major parties as being loopy. It’s a sad day for society when intelligent, well thought out policies backed up with empirical evidence are considered radical whilst maintaining a useless and unsuccessful policy. I have compiled from the last 12 months some classic Liberal Party nonsense dressed up as their “Tough on Drugs” strategy. Keep in mind that these people are supposed to be adults in a position of power and responsibility who are meant to represent us. It is also worth noting that there is ample information and research debunking most of their drug policies and is readily available on the internet. 

NOTE: Some items are extracts and some articles have been edited for the sake of readability. For the full articles, click on the links provided. Items of special interest are coloured red.


JAMIE BRIGGS MP - FEDERAL MEMBER FOR MAYO
Booze Focus Misses Top Risk Of Drugs, Says Jamie Briggs 
By Emma Chalmers (Courier-Mail)
April 2009
DRUGS are the No. 1 risk young people face and the Federal Government's focus on binge drinking means it is missing the problem, a Liberal MP and former adviser to John Howard has warned. South Australian MP Jamie Briggs yesterday said The Courier-Mail's recent series on the drugs scourge exposed how cheap and available illicit drugs were to young people. "What (The Courier-Mail's) series of reports showed is the people walking into clubs can buy for $25 something which is mind-altering," he said. "You don't know where it's made, there's no standards for it and in many instances it's very dangerous." Mr Briggs, who replaced former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer in the seat of Mayo, said that while the Rudd Government was focused on binge drinking and the alcopops tax, it was missing a bigger issue. "If you're serious about addressing issues which are relevant to young people then ecstasy and party drugs have to be part of that," he said. The Rudd Government on Wednesday said it would try again to impose a 70 per cent tax increase on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks popular with young people after its last attempt sank in the Senate by just one vote. Mr Briggs said the Government should widen its alcohol education program - which it will fund with some of the revenue from the tax hike - to include information about all risks relevant to young people, especially drugs. He also called for more police resources to be devoted to the problem.

Excise Tariff Amendment And Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No 1) Bill 2009 
Jamie Briggs MP: Speech to the House
February 2009 
Minister, I never would have undertaken any activities and broken the law—this was binge drinking after 18! It is not a new problem. Binge drinking is a very serious issue and it is a major concern, particularly for those of us who have young children, going forward. We need to educate our children on how to deal properly with alcohol use. It is also not the only problem for young people in society today. We have seen in recent times the problem with illicit drugs, particularly ecstasy at some of these dance and rave parties that have occurred or even at festivals sponsored by a very well-known Australian funded broadcaster. It is not the only issue that haunts young people and that is a challenge to young people. In fact, I would contend it is not the major issue which challenges young people. The truth is that the majority of people in our society use alcohol properly. They do not drink to excess and they do not become a statistic of violence or some of the other problems that occur with overindulging in alcohol. The other truth is that the alcohol industry is a major employer in Australia. Whether it be through the wine industry in my electorate of Mayo in the state of South Australia or through the distilled industries, it is a major employer. So those on the other side should be careful not to take too much of a wowser approach to alcohol, because we are dealing with people’s jobs and people’s lives. What we on this side of the House wanted to see when this was announced was a genuine attempt at addressing a serious issue—not just the issue of binge drinking but the multiple issues that affect young people as they grow into adults and go through the pressures of becoming a young adult. Of course, many of them do overindulge in alcohol. But, as I said earlier, many of them also have issues with illicit drugs, which cause a great deal of harm to many young people in our community. Unlike alcohol, which you can use in a measured way—and most do—illicit drugs of course you cannot. So many of our young people get caught in the cycle of trying different illicit drugs, and it all too often damages their lives. It seems to me that if we were serious about addressing this binge drinking issue, we would also be looking at that as one of the other challenges for young people moving into adulthood. Of course, illicit drugs have to be a major part of that strategy. It is disappointing to us to see that the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars on a preventative health campaign turned into simply $50 million designed to run some ads, as it appears to have done.

The myth that relaxing with one or two drinks is vastly different to drug use, again rears it’s ugly head. Those like Briggs push the image of drugged out, crazy eyed zombies or junkies slumped in an alley with a syringe dangling out of their arm as the guaranteed result of any drug use. The idea that someone can smoke just a little pot to relax or take just one ecstasy tablet for a night of fun is inconceivable to the pro alcohol / anti-drug brigade. Of course, the "use to excess" drug myth was debunked in the 1970s but incredible still remains a valid argument for seasoned liars. The fact is, a small amount of alcohol like “relaxing with one or two drinks” affects the brain and causes a reaction like taking any sort of mind altering drug.


BARRY O'FARRELL MP - NSW STATE LIBERAL LEADER
Call For Anti-Drug Campaign, Ban On Term ‘Recreational Drugs’s
By Barry O'Farrell MP (Media Release)
April 2009
Crime statistics revealing significant increases in drug offences and drug use across NSW highlighted the urgent need for a high profile campaign to alert the community to the dangers of illegal drugs. These alarming statistics require an urgent and strong response from the State Government. They require a high profile, strong public education campaign that warns people about the dangers of illegal drugs. It should also seek to equip parents with information on how to identify signs their children are using illegal drugs and where to go for help. Official federal figures reveal that NSW spends less money on drug prevention than any other State or territory. We should also seek to banish the term ‘recreational drugs’ from the vocabulary of both the community and the media. We’re talking about harmful and dangerous drugs. Use of the term ‘recreational drugs’ sends a far different message about them. We need to warn young people about the dangers of drugs – we haven’t had such a campaign since the drugs summit ten years ago. Current State policy is failing to tackle the scourge of illegal drugs in our community. NSW needs greater investment in a comprehensive, public program aimed at preventing use of illegal drugs like cocaine and ecstasy. These latest crime figures demonstrate that use of illegal drugs is a growth industry in NSW. They suggest we have taken our eye off the ball. We must use their release to better educate families about the dangers of illegal drug use.

Campbell Drops The Ball On Drug Testing For Rail Workers: A Positive Test Every Five Days 
By Barry O'Farrell MP (Media Release
February 2009 
Transport Minister David Campbell needs to step up the random drug testing of rail workers after the latest figures reveal a decline in the number of tests, but a rise in the number of positive results. As Seven News reported this evening, a rail worker tests positive for drugs every five days. 
Year            Tests    Positive 
2004/05        4,498    47 
2005/06        8,744    74 
2006/07        4,017    51 
2007/08        5,136    71 

Passenger safety is put at risk if a train driver or guard is affected by drugs. It makes no sense to be cutting the number of random drug tests if the positive test results continue to increase. The minority of rail workers who abuse drugs need to be weeded out and the public needs to be assured that strong action is being taken. They need to know that repeat offenders lose their jobs. Rail commuters already face enough transport stress without having to worry about whether their train driver or guard is affected by drugs. NSW Police don’t cut back on the number of random alcohol tests they carry out. CityRail shouldn’t be cutting back on their drug tests. David Campbell needs to get serious about tackling this dangerous behaviour on the rail network.

See a problem here? Tests haven’t declined, they have increased. That’s only part of the issue though. Most illicit drugs stay in your system much longer than alcohol but have a diminished effect on your performance after 12-24 hours. Cannabis can linger in your blood for 30 days but any real effect from the THC disappears after about 4-5 hours. Other drugs can stay in your blood for 48 hours to weeks with any effects disappearing after 12-24 hours or so. I agree that drug use at certain jobs is extremely dangerous but being picked up a week after you took drugs is a problem that needs some attention.


MIKE GALLACHER MLC - NSW SHADOW POLICE MINISTER
Crime Rises Tied To Economic Conditions: Labor Unprepared 
By Mike Gallacher MLC (Media Release)
April 2009 
Recorded crime statistics released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research today reveal increases in crime rates tied to economic conditions, the affects of which the NSW State Labor Government are ill prepared for. [...] Of equal concern are the dramatic increases in drug possession. While much of this can be put down to increased enforcement at drug use hotspots; it is obvious the anti-drug message is not getting through. The NSW State Labor Government needs to get serious about organised crime, and about cutting the supply of drugs off at the source. Sniffer dogs and overt enforcement of drug laws send a clear message to the wider public that drug use is a crime; but the decrease in narcotics use over the last decade has shown us habitual drug users will not stop until the drug supply is cut off at the source.

For an aspiring police minister, Mike Gallacher is extremely naive. That’s if he actually believes in what he is saying of course. Berating the government for not cutting off the drug supply at it’s source is worth a giggle or two considering the Mexican army can’t even do it in their country. What’s your solution Mike? “Sniffer dogs and overt enforcement of drug laws sending a message”? [more giggles] Yes Mike, you’re a joke.


JILLIAN SKINNER - NSW SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH
Victory For Families And Opposition On Drugs Pamphlet, But Review Must Involve Frontline Educators 
By Jillian Skinner (Media Release)
June 2008 
The pulping of a Iemma Government pamphlet giving school children the green light to take illegal drugs is a victory for families and the State Opposition. The pulping of this offensive document was the only option Health Minister Reba Meagher could take. The decision of the Health Minister’s department to produce this document in the first place casts fresh doubts about Reba Meagher’s judgement. If further demonstrates how incompetent the Health Minister is. It also confirms this pamphlet was distributed beyond the small group suggested by various Iemma Government spokespeople. Once again, the Iemma Government has been caught out trying to spin its way out of trouble one minute, and then dithering and trying to cover its tracks the next. Reba Meagher needs to confirm how many of these pamphlets were produced, and how much it cost taxpayers? The review of all drug education material handed out in our schools, announced today, is long overdue. For too long this kind of mixed message has been coming out of the Iemma Government, it has to stop. To be effective this review must involve all people involved in drug education. If this is just another statement to get the media and concerned families off Reba Meagher’s back, it’s going to backfire – we will not rest until this review is made public and all relevant parties are allowed to have their say. Drug education must carry the simple message that it is never safe to take illegal drugs. Only the incompetence of the Iemma Government could stuff up giving this vitally important message to school children.
The pulping of this offensive document was the only option” 

So telling the truth is offensive? Saving lives is offensive? Facing reality is offensive? When will the reality of drug use finally sink in their cold, hard, shit encased brains? Are they really that stupid and if so, what are they doing representing us? Even scarier is that they really do know the reality but are just scumbag liars scurrying for votes. “Drug education must carry the simple message that it is never safe to take illegal drugs” - Again, are they really that stupid? Doesn’t Jillian Skinner have kids or realise that lecturing false promises of life ruining carnage from any drug use at all is simply dismissed as lies? Kids (and adults) who see many friends or family use drugs and not suffering the promised personal apocalypse tend to just ignore the steady stream of doomsday messages. Sadly, they will probably ignore a message which may one day actually be important. Maybe Jillian Skinhead should read the book, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.


COLIN BARNETT - WEST AUSTRALIAN PREMIER
Drug Bin Trial To Go Ahead Despite Opposition 
News Article (ABC News)
March 2008 
The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, says he will not stand in the way of police trialing drug amnesty bins at major events, even though he does not support the concept. Police are expected to trial the bins at a music concert in Joondalup on Sunday. The trial follows the death of 17-year-old Gemma Thoms, who died in hospital after taking ecstasy tablets at the Big Day Out music festival in Perth in February. It is believed she swallowed the tablets after fearing police, who were searching people, would find them. Concert goers will be able to use to the bins to dispose illegal drugs before entering the venue without facing any charges. Mr Barnett says he does not like the idea. "The Police Commissioner wants to trial that so he can do that," he said. "It's not something that I believe gives the right message and harm minimisation has been a failure and absolute failure in the treatment of drugs in this state."

Straight from the smelly bowels of those lying anti-Harm Minimisation zealots. If HM is such a failure, why are so many countries now implementing it into their drug policies? For a state premier to blatantly lie by assuming it’s a non-scientific issue without evidence, indicates how out of touch Barnett really is. His views might be fluffy ideology but HM is based on science and medical research with qualified results. The opposite to just “sending the wrong message” or other feel good policies.


SUSSAN LEY MP - FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS
Labor Soft On Border Protection, Soft On Drugs 
By Sussan Ley (Media Release)
April 2009
The Minister for Home Affairs Bob Debus must move swiftly to tighten controls on pill presses being imported into Australia. The smallest of pill presses is capable of pumping out about 6000 pills in just one hour. Considering the use of ecstasy has risen steadily from 1.2% of the population in 1993 to 3.5% in recent years, and we know that the precursor chemicals are slipping though the net all the time, a ban on importing pill presses by unlicensed members of the public is a sensible way of attacking the problem at the sharp end – where manufacturing takes place. The Rudd Labor Government cannot continue to allow organised criminal groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs to use the postal service to make and receive their illicit drug supply. Minister Debus has said there are no plans for even a review of the policy to import pill presses. How can the Rudd Labor Government claim they have a Tough on Drugs strategy when they will not even consider banning the drug making machinery? At the annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, the Rudd Labor Government protested that the term ‘harm reduction’ had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration. This puts Australia at loggerheads with our traditional ‘tough on drugs’ ally, the United States. This further proves the Rudd Labor Government is taking a soft approach to illicit drugs. Experience has proven that harm minimisation has failed and hard-hitting measures are needed. Minister Debus needs to come out of his hole and start making some tough decisions to protect Australia from the flood of illicit drugs crossing our borders.

More from Sussan Ley - Liberal Party News

Sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised criminal syndicates rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another. It is impossible to say what quantity of illegal drugs is slipping through the net but we do know that the prices pad for illegal narcotics in Australia are the highest in the world so there is every reason for organised crime syndicates to target this country 
-Rudd Needs To Clarify: Are Criminals Running Our Docks? - 27, February 2009 

If people smugglers are getting savvy, then so will importers of drugs, weapons and other contraband, so Rudd and his Government need to get savvy too. 
-Rudd And Debus Prove They’re Unable To Protect Our Borders - April 16, 2009 

With Australia being seen once again as a ‘soft target’ by people smugglers and the increasing numbers of illegal vessels arriving on our shores we must put more focus on patrols without taking away from other customs duties such as preventing illicit drugs and weapons entering the country, illegal fishing, and wildlife smuggling. 
-Rudd Leaves Our Borders Vulnerable - April 9, 2009 

Customs Officers are charged with protecting the Australian community by intercepting illegal drugs, weapons, dangerous plant species and smuggled wildlife, not to mention interdiction of people smuggling vessels in our northern waters. 
-Shameful Labor Cuts Customs Staff Pay By Stealth - March 30, 2009 

Gang related crime can happen at our wharves as well as our airports and the Rudd Government needs to shape up on port security to prevent organised criminals smuggling drugs, guns and money through Australia’s docks. It is clear that maritime security is our most vulnerable defence against terrorism, drug trafficking and the illegal movement of people and weapons. 
-Criminal Gangs Exploiting Our Wharves - March 23, 2009 

It is shameful that the Rudd Labor Government feels it is OK to waste $10 million when we have drugs on our streets, and weapons in the hands of outlaw bikie gangs. 
-Kevin Rudd, Robbing Peter To Re-Badge Paul - March 23, 2009 

If the Government cares about stamping out the supply of illicit drugs in Australia, they should admit they made an error in cutting Customs and AFP funding and reverse the cuts in the up-coming Budget. 
-Customs Cocaine Bust Underscores Risk In Labor’s Budget Cuts - February 17, 2009 

In conjunction with several other tasks, Customs are responsible for overseeing mass volumes of imports and exports, along with detecting illicit drugs and prohibited imports to ensure they do not get through the gate. Customs are the front line in protecting our borders from these threats and the Rudd Labor Government has taken this for granted when they recklessly slashed funds to our border protection and law enforcement agencies. 
-Border Security Disaster Looms - December 17, 2008 

Ms Ley said sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised crime rings rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another. 
-Changes Needed To Make Australian Ports Secure - October 9, 2008

Like all loyal members of the Liberal Party, Sussan Ley really has an obsession with illicit drugs especially those being smuggled into Australia. After all, it’s her role as Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs to keep the government honest about customs and border security. But maybe she should be honest herself. Not once has Sussan Ley mentioned that only about 10% of illicit drugs coming into this country are detected or confiscated. Fiddling around the edges is not going to stop drugs being imported into Australia. Ending prohibition will.


SENATOR MATHIAS CORMANN - SHADOW PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY FOR HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
What About The Winnable War On Drugs Prime Minister? 
By Mathias Cormann (Media Release)
November 2008 
Kevin Rudd needs to commit to the ‘war on drugs’. In his first year in office the Prime Minister has been leading a ‘war’ on just about everything. Why is it then that his Government has abandoned the critically important war on drugs? More than a year after the release of the comprehensive House of Representatives Committee report “The winnable war on drugs – The impact of illicit drug use on families” the Rudd Government still has not provided any response to the Parliament. In the Government’s propaganda paper on its first year in office the battle faced by too many families against the enemy of drug abuse hardly rates a mention. The time for more Committees and reviews on the challenge of drug abuse is over. This is the time to make decisions and take action. We need decisions focused on winning the war, not on helping the enemy gain more strength. The story in today’s Daily Telegraph is a shocking demonstration of how a completely misguided harm minimisation approach by Labor in NSW is failing young people and their families. Our children don’t need lessons on how to use harmful and illicit drugs. They need to get the clear message that drugs are bad. Of course we have to provide effective treatment to anyone with a drug problem – but it should never ever be done in a way that normalises drug use. Any parent would be shocked and horrified to read the advice that has been circulated to children in NSW schools, including comments such as:

  • If you don’t already have a reliable dealer, try to find one and stick with them
  • When you’re using a new batch (of speed) only try a little at first - you can always use the rest later if you need to
  • Budget for food, rent and bills BEFORE you spend money on drugs
  • Don’t buy drugs on credit

It is time the Prime Minister showed some national leadership on this. Teaching 14 year old kids how to use illicit drugs is just outrageous. This is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately! I look forward to meeting with Darren Marton, the founder of the ‘Drugs - No-Way’ campaign in Canberra on Wednesday, along with Ms Bronwyn Bishop, who chaired the House of Representatives Inquiry into Illicit Drugs last year.

Anyone who seriously thinks Bronwyn Bishop’s report, “The Winnable War on Drugs” is worth consideration should instantly be ignored. Topping it up with “Kevin Rudd needs to commit to the ‘war on drugs’” and “this is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately” only backs it up. Maybe they should learn that it’s better to say nothing when you have nothing useful to say. Nothing highlights this better than Cormann’s criticism of the practical tips given to those kids who have started using drugs. Read more here.


THE HON CHRISTOPHER ELLISON - SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
My Decision To Retire From Politics 
By Christopher Ellison (Media Release)
September 2008 
As Minister for Schools, he helped to implement national benchmarks for literacy and numeracy and oversaw a revision of funding for non-government schools. He also set up, for the first time, a National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education. As part of the Prime Minister’s Tough on Drugs Strategy, Senator Ellison oversaw the development of the $7.4 million Schools Drug Education Strategy with the national goal of no illicit drugs in schools.

Looks like his goal of no illicit drugs in schools was a fizzer. Do they really believe these goals of a drug free society? Heck, we can’t even stop drugs getting into prisons but magically we were going to stop drugs in schools. Again, some basic questions need to be asked - Are they really that stupid? If yes, why the hell are we listening to them. If no, they are being deceitful because they know the goals are unachievable.


MIKE HORAN - QLD LIBERAL NATIONAL PARTY(LNP) JUSTICE SPOKESMAN
LNP Justice commitment- Major Sentencing Audit and Law Reform 
By Mike Horan (Media Release)
March 2009 
A major sentencing audit to achieve community standards was a key part of the LNP’s Government commitment to restore confidence in the States struggling Justice System. People were sick and tired of Labor’s weak sentencing laws that allowed serious criminals such as rapists and armed robbers to walk free from court. An LNP Government would conduct an immediate audit of criminal sentencing laws, the results of which would underpin any changes to the laws. The LNP will make Queensland’s drug laws the toughest in the country to stop the scourge of drugs upon young people and crime. As part of the LNP’s commitment to overhaul sentencing laws in Queensland, drug traffickers and serious drug producers can expect serious jail time. An LNP Government would ensure that serious offenders such as drug traffickers serve 100 per cent of their jail sentences. The LNP is committed to introducing telephone interception powers to assist our police in catching the drug producers and dealers. The LNP would provide effective rehabilitation options for first-time young offenders and examine the use of mandatory drug rehabilitation orders for others. The LNP believes that the hard work of our police in catching these criminal should be backed up by tough, effective sentencing. Making excuses for drug dealers and drug criminals needs to end, now. We need a system of justice that holds these people accountable for their actions and puts community safety first. Other LNP Justice Policy Commitments include:
  • Immediate Sentence Audit
  • Remove detention as a last resort from Juvenile Justice Act
  • Establishment of youth training centres to break the cycle of crime and provide a chance for reform
  • Mandatory Minimum 3 months Jail for serious assaults on police
  • Introduce voluntary intoxication by drug or alcohol as a circumstance of aggravation for all serious violent offences
  • Criminal Law Reform- ‘One punch can kill laws’
  • Graffiti clean up and tough gate-crashing laws
  • Mandatory minimum sentences for Drug traffickers
  • Telephone interception powers for police
  • No sex offender will be released without having completed a rehabilitation program and considered safe
  • Support of Justice staff and career opportunities
Drug Traffickers Should Do Time 
By Mike Horan (Media Release)
February 2009 
The failure of a court in Cairns to sentence a drug trafficker to any real jail time is further evidence that sentencing laws in Queensland need to be reformed. Drug trafficking and illegal drug use was the underlying cause of most robberies and property crime in Queensland. The community expects to see such drug traffickers sent to jail not released with a slap on the wrist. Punishment for crimes must reflect community standards and also protect the community. An immediate parole order release for a serious drug trafficking offence shows the sentencing laws under the Bligh Government are failing. Sentences need to send a clear message to would-be criminals and the rest of the community that such behaviour will be dealt with harshly. If sentences don't reflect community standards it's our job as law-makers to ensure they do ... drug trafficking puts the lives of every Queenslander at risk. Labor has made an art-form of pretending to be tough on crime. They have gone about increasing maximum penalties for offences, but nothing to ensure tough penalties are applied at court, where it counts." 

Mandatory Rehab For Druggies 
By Mike Horan (Media Release)
November 2008 
Changes to Queensland's court system were needed to ensure addicts undertook rehab to break the drug-crime-cycle. Research by the State's Crime and Misconduct Commission showed pressing all people with serious substance abuse problems into mandatory rehab had to be considered as a viable option to just voluntary rehab. The findings of the CMC's study were very welcome and he called on the Bligh government to respond to redress the major problem of drug-linked crime. Queensland is a major source of amphetamines and other hard drugs and we need to ensure people addicted to drugs have access to the support they need. If we can break the cycle of drug crime it will save society in the long term. Figures released in the Corrective Services annual report show 70 per cent of people currently going through the Drug Court do not finish rehab and less people have been going through the program. We need to invest more in the drug rehabilitation and court system to ensure it works. The CMC research shows offenders with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems don't need to be psychologically ready and motivated for treatment to get results with about 65 per cent of those who underwent treatment reporting positive outcomes regardless of whether the treatment was mandatory or voluntary. The CMC research paper, Mandatory treatment and perceptions of treatment effectiveness, looked at the risks and needs of 480 non-custodial drug offenders in Qld. The results suggest people with serious substance abuse problems need support and encouragement to access treatment, so mandatory treatment for offenders may be an effective option.

How do people like Horan get in these positions of power? I can’t fathom how someone is given the justice portfolio and then encourages even more useless law and order initiatives that have failed consistently in other countries including Australia. In the business world, Horan would be sacked and shamed for being completely incompetent. There are so many suggestions from Horan that have failed previously that it resembles a parody comedy skit. Comments like “drug trafficking puts the lives of every Queenslander at risk” and “If we can break the cycle of drug crime it will save society in the long term” have no substance at all but reflect the mindset of a government without real solutions. It’s always easy to get “Tough on Drugs” using standard, vote friendly rhetoric but it doesn’t actually address the problems. If Horan can be so wrong on this issue, why should we trust him with anything else?


Friday, 20 March 2009

Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?


There seems to be a spike in dickheadness lately from the WA political arena especially in regards to drug policy. Sadly, pointing out dickheads is becoming all too common on this website but it’s our duty to inform the public of this phallic phenomenon. Especially when the dickhead in question is a scurrilous politician on the public purse.

Let me introduce Luke Simpkins MP for Cowan in WA. Simpkins has given a speech in parliament in response to an article in The Australian titled, ‘Labor softens heroin stance as it splits from US policy’. The article suggested that Australia(under Labor) was being ‘soft on drugs’ by supporting Harm Minimisation at the latest UNGASS meeting in Vienna. Reading through Simpkins speech has reinforced our duty to highlight how dangerous and unrealistic politicians can be and if necessary, declare them dickheads. Declaration made!

First of all, anyone who has to rummage through the city rubbish dump looking for a copy of The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs” is destined to be a bit nutty. Secondly, admitting publicly they found it or even worse, promoting it is a serious offence to sensibility and indictable by being labelled a dickhead.

Unbelievably though, this is not the worst of it. Simpkins actually says that Harm Minimisation has failed and is a “generally discredited” approach to dealing with drugs. Eh? It’s hard to discredit something that has never been fully implemented ... and discredited by who? Fellow dickheads? Of course this was followed up with a call to implement a Zero Tolerance policy under that purposely confusing term, harm prevention. No Surrender Simpkin has creatively called his approach, “No Surrender”. No, he is not an ex advertising guru, he thought this up all by himself. So what does ‘No Surrender’ entail?
I personally advocate the harm prevention approach, which I also call the ‘no surrender’ approach. That, in my mind, includes three main strategies: to stop supply; to educate people; and to rehabilitate users through enforced treatment, either by sanctions or otherwise, and through testing, to make sure that there is actually going to be progress.
-Luke Simpkins MP Cowan (WA)
If it sounds familiar it might be because it is Harm Minimisation with the 3rd strategy reversed. Most of the pundits who express their strong opposition to Harm Minimisation seem to overlook that the first two parts are supply reduction and demand reduction.

The controversial third pillar, harm reduction is just part of the overall policy called Harm Minimisation. Anyway, here’s what Simpkins has suggested as part of his ‘No Surrender’ strategy:
-Permanent removal of children from drug-addicted parents.
-Restrictions on methadone programs
-Removal of funding for harm minimisation programs
-Removal of funding for harm minimisation publications
-Rehabilitation through forced treatment
-Restricting alcohol content
-Raising the drinking age to 21

Simpkin also hints at abstinence as the only successful outcome by testing those in treatment. How can a leader in today’s society of science and technology be so far removed from reality? Simpkins rant is not about modern medical treatment but right wing voodoo ideology likened to medieval alchemy or homeopathy.

Why can’t the Libs shake off Howard’s tough on drugs rhetoric especially references to The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”? With the current push by the US and other nations towards a more pragmatic approach to drug policy including harm reduction, Simpkins appears like a Japanese soldier isolated on an island after WW2 not aware the war is over. To others, he is simply a dickhead.

The Article
The article in The Australian was not unexpected considering the conservative slant of Murdoch’s trash media empire. Decrying sensible alternatives to failed harsh strategies as being ‘soft on drugs’ is a common tactic. It relies on the ignorance of the public and the assumption that being ‘tough’ stops drug use and being ‘soft’ increases it.
The Rudd Government has moved to reassert the role of controversial harm-reduction strategies in the fight against the illicit drug trade, splitting from the US at a major international drug forum on the issue.
-Labor softens heroin stance as it splits from US policy -
The Australian
Controversial? It’s been part of our national drug policy since 1984. Who writes this shit? The drug forum mentioned had the US reject the term harm reduction because it include some strategies the US doesn’t support like prescription heroin and safe injection rooms.

The article fails to include that the US under Obama has over turned the ban on federal funding for needle exchanges and even endorses the program ... a harm reduction program. The consensus from the UNGASS meeting in Vienna was that the health of drug users was a priority with a aim to reduce harm. It was the terminology that had nations squabbling especially from the old school leftovers of the Bush administration. 

Concerned about the article, Tony Trimingham, Founder of Family Drug Support wrote this revealing letter to the editor of The Australian:

Dear Editor
It is with some dismay that I read the Australian’s headline (‘Labor softens heroin stance’ – 18/3/09) – the story itself appears to be about Australia at a UN meeting in Vienna promoting its balanced and pragmatic national drug strategy which combines supply, demand and harm reduction approaches. Something they are rightly deserving of praise for doing and is also something I personally know to be a view shared by many in the drug and alcohol field including the Australian National Council on Drugs. Why the media persist in trying to portray any statements about evidence based approaches that have been developed over many years and have been adopted by the majority of governments as being ‘soft’ does a disservice to the public. Do we really think that policies that end up seeing more people die, become HIV positive and being locked up in jails, such as we see in the USA and Russia is a drug strategy that should be supported and adopted by Australia?
-Tony Trimingham Founder Family Drug Support
Harm Minimisation is supposed to be Australia’s official drug policy although this escaped Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard who amazingly denied it whilst in office. Unfortunately it has never been implemented properly and we have continued to apply many of the failed strategies from the US "War on Drugs". WA had started to implement some serious policy changes with positives results but a new government seems hellbent on ignoring the success and reverting back to the rhetoric driven failures. We are also seeing this in SA from the Rann government. Is the Rudd government going to follow this lead? If the declaration at the UNGASS from 26 countries including Australia is an indication, we might finally be on the road towards some sensible drug policies.
Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party)
Open Australia
Constituency Statements
Illicit Drugs

I would like to speak this morning on the matter of illicit drugs. This morning in the Australian there was a highly-concerning report on the front page suggesting that the government is pursuing the failed and generally discredited harm minimisation approach to dealing with drugs. I hope that this is not true. Instead, the government should be pursuing the harm prevention approach. I personally advocate the harm prevention approach, which I also call the ‘no surrender’ approach. That, in my mind, includes three main strategies: to stop supply; to educate people; and to rehabilitate users through enforced treatment, either by sanctions or otherwise, and through testing, to make sure that there is actually going to be progress.

I would like to acknowledge the great work done by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services, with their 2007 report The winnable war on drugsbecause the day that we think that we can no longer win is the day that we surrender, and I would hate to see that day. The report made a number of recommendations. There are just over 30 recommendations. I would certainly like to endorse the permanent removal of children from drug-addicted parents. I would also like to endorse restrictions on methadone programs and the absolute elimination of funding for harm minimisation programs or harm minimisation publications. I believe that these are important steps forward to address the drug situation in this country.

A lot has been said in the parliament recently about another drug—that being the legal drug of alcohol. The government is pursuing the approach of taxation to try to deal with the issue of binge drinking. I would like to see the day when we pass legislation which would restrict the alcohol content of drinks. If the government is really keen on dealing with this binge-drinking problem it might consider, as some have advocated, raising the drinking age to 21. I am sure that that would be extremely unpopular, but it may help. Ultimately these things are about free choice, but in the case of illicit drugs I think the hard line needs to be taken of harm prevention and never harm minimisation or harm reduction—or, otherwise, surrender to the scourge of illicit drugs.
Related Articles: Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters WA Liberals Become Even Sillier WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues