Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Drugs. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Drug Law Reform - NZ Show Australia How it's Done

It seems that our New Zealand cousins are finally taking some much needed action on drug law reform. Australia should take note of this and consider carefully what they are doing.

Old, antiquated drug laws and policies continue to wreak carnage on society while our government continue to apply the same old failed strategies, hoping for some miraculous turn around. For over 40 years, we have followed in the foot steps of the US which is only now starting to see the damage they have inflicted on their own people. Likewise in Australia, we have ruined so many lives from a "Tough on Drugs" mentality and the laws are causing more problems than drugs themselves.

Why do NZ have a better understanding of this than Australia? SA and WA had started seeing good results from a more sensible approach to cannabis use but decided to ignore the success by reintroducing tougher laws. These acts of arrogance were in complete opposition to the current world trend and in defiance of expert opinion. Even the Australian federal government continues to cherry pick advice from key advisory groups purely to suit their political needs. All this while the evidence keeps pouring in that our drug policies are probably some of the worst decisions ever made by a government. New Zealand is at least doing something about it.

Too many resources are directed into criminalising people rather than providing them with the medical help they most need. Current drug law is 35 years out-of-date and is hurting our families.

Too many resources are directed into criminalising people rather than providing them with the medical help they most need. The Law Commission's report recognises this and seeks to redress it by adopting a harm reduction approach for dealing with personal drug use by adults.

This new approach, if adopted, will actually save money enabling greater resources to be directed into health services for breaking the cycle of drug abuse and addiction. It will also free police to tackle more serious crime.

The suggestions made by NZ Law Commission are a good start for a future without drug prohibition ... the single most destructive policy in 100 years. Most of us have never experienced a world where recreational drugs were regulated which makes it hard for the public to imagine how ending drug prohibition would work. We have to gradually introduce recommendations like those from the NZ Law Commission and give them time to take hold. As predicted by the experts, the results will speak for themselves, slowly shifting the public's perception. Well done NZ!


NZLC R122 Controlling and Regulating Drugs - A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

Published 3 May 2011

The Law Commission today issued its latest report, Controlling and Regulating Drugs – A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Among the key proposals contained in the report are:

A mandatory cautioning scheme for all personal possession and use offences that come to the attention of the police, removing minor drug offenders from the criminal justice system and providing greater opportunities for those in need of treatment to access it.

A full scale review of the current drug classification system which is used to determine restrictiveness of controls and severity of penalties, addressing existing inconsistencies and focusing solely on assessing a drug’s risk of harm, including social harm.

Making separate funding available for the treatment of offenders through the justice sector to support courts when they impose rehabilitative sentences to address alcohol and drug dependence problems;

Consideration of a pilot drug court, allowing the government to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deferring sentencing of  some  offenders until they had undergone court-imposed alcohol and/or drug treatment



No More Prisons, Says English
May 2011

Finance minister Bill English says there will be no more prisons built under his watch as finance minister.

He's called prisons a moral and fiscal failure and there are other ways of dealing with criminals and potential criminals.

Asked by Guyon Espiner on Q A this morning if the government was going to continue building prisons once the 1000-bed facility in the Auckland suburb of Wiri was completed, English said Wiri was likely to be the last.

"They're very, very expensive," English said. "$250,000 a bed, $90,000 a year to run ... when we're tight for money."

He said the aim instead is to reduce recidivism, and prevent young people from entering the system at all.

"The public service has done a lot of very smart work on this and, over the next two or three years, we're going to see the need for prison beds drop a bit at least."

But a spokesperson for victims says English is wrong. Sensible Sentencing spokesperson Garth McVicar says it's not the right tactic.

"Just as they were starting to bear fruit through the 'tough on crime' message that they were sending out, he capitulates and waves a white flag," McVicar told ONE News.

"It just sends the wrong message to criminals. I know people think criminals are dumb but they're quite smart and they'll understand if we're not going to build more prisons out there, then ultimately we're not going to send them to prison."

One advocate for penal reform agrees with English and is certain having more prisons will just breed more criminals.

"We could put more prisoners into trades; we could put more prisoners into work on farms," Peter Williams QC told ONE News.

"We've got to put more emphasis on rehabilitation, drug programmes, anti-alcohol programmes without just locking these people up in small containers."

English said the government is committed to building Wiri's prison so that won't change.

"That's well through the process, and we need the extra 1000 beds because it's been part of this government's policy and public pressure for tougher sentences and a safer community," he said.

The Labour Government built four prisons but National has been saving money by housing some prisoners in purpose-adapted containers.

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Even the Truth About Drugs are Illegal

The more I read about this story, the more bizarre it becomes. Seriously, how clueless are these simpleminded people?

Shelby Considers Drug Charges Against Lisa Ling, Crew
Jami Kinton 
March 2011

SHELBY -- Local authorities are considering charges after a recent Oprah Winfrey Network broadcast displayed extensive drug use in and around Richland County.

The Shelby Police Department filed a general offense report Monday morning, with offenses including "corrupting another with drugs," "drug abuse" and "child endangerment."

The offenders?

National news correspondent Lisa Ling, the production crew and all subjects involved in a recent episode of "Our America."

The report, along with a recommendation for misdemeanor and felony charges, will be presented to the Richland County Prosecutor's Office today.

For months, Ling and her crew filmed in Mansfield, Shelby, Plymouth and beyond to detail the heroin problem in Richland County.

When the episode aired on TV on March 22, Shelby police Chief Charlie Roub said he was shocked by what he saw.

"There were people using drugs, talking about using drugs and in one scene, you've got people using drugs with a 1-year-old present," Roub said. "The 1-year-old was also in the back of a van with his parents on their way to purchase drugs."

Spokespeople from the Oprah Winfrey Network have not responded to requests for comment from the News Journal.

"Sometimes it's hard to tell where the drugs are being used at, like when the subjects are in the van, but some places are easily identified as Richland County," Roub said. "Even if you start to commit a crime here and you end in another location, you can still say it started here."

The show, according to the chief, depicts several people injecting themselves and others with drugs. Some were minors at the time, he said.

"What happens from here will be up to the prosecutor to determine, but even if a counterfeit drug was offered, that's a crime, too," Roub said. "If you present it as a drug, it's a drug."

One family involved still lives in the Shelby area.

"I know these people," Roub said. "I've known them for a long time. I just didn't appreciate the whole thing. The show gives this area a bad name. You pick on an area like Richland County, and it makes us look like we're the worst there is in the country.

"Simply not true.”

Hiding the Truth About Drugs Won’t Make Them Go Away
At first, I thought the article was a satire on how midwest America over reacts to drug related issues and it took a few minutes before it sunk in. Then I realised that some elected whackjobs were actually contemplating whether to lay charges on a film crew for reporting on the local drug problem. And these are not just simple misdemeanours but full-on felony charges. Accusing the film crew of “corrupting another with drugs”, "drug abuse" and "child endangerment" is not for the light hearted. This is serious stuff.

It seems that if you expose the uncomfortable truth about illicit drugs, the authorities become obsessed with proving that this information is dangerous to the public. Any diversion from the usual government’s tough line on drugs leaves authorities vulnerable to those pesky facts whipped up by researchers and truth seeking journalists. This sends our leaders into a spin as they go scurrying for their rule books on drug policy and protocol. Never mind that the drug policies they so fervently support are at the root of the problem. Never mind that the laws they insist on cause more carnage, death and misery than drugs ever will. Do they realise that drug policy has been the biggest government failure in history? Why are they so scared of the truth?

Remember Professor David Nutt, head of the UK government’s The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD)? He was sacked by the Home Secretary for simply providing facts to the public. Prof. Nutt made worldwide headlines when he stated that ecstasy and cannabis were not as harmful as the authorities claimed and should be reclassified along with an overhaul of the countries’ drug scheduling system. His comments incensed the government, horrified the anti-drug nut-jobs and sent the tabloid press into a frenzy. The dilemma though was that the Professor was right. And although he may have had scientific research and evidence on his side, government policy isn’t always about the facts. Especially when it comes to drug policy. His offence was described by the Home Secretary as creating “confusion between scientific advice and policy” which says a lot about how the government implements those policies. If important government policies are not based on facts, evidence and science then what the hell are they based on?

How can Shelby Police justify filing charges for airing a documentary? The reporters and film crew were just showing the world how some people live. Documenting the harsh reality of drug abuse on public TV isn’t creating the situation but merely exposing a major problem. Whether the subjects were committing a crime or not, it would have occurred regardless of a TV crew being present. 

There were people using drugs, talking about using drugs and in one scene, you've got people using drugs with a 1-year-old present. The 1-year-old was also in the back of a van with his parents on their way to purchase drugs.
--A shocked Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

That poor 1-year old, being confronted with drug use and van rides at his age. And how dare those ruthless addicts talk about drugs let alone using them. Really? Is this the level of behaviour we expect from an elected Police Chief? There were no violent crimes committed or dangerous behaviour that harmed the community. The footage was simply of people inflicted with an addiction which by-the-way, is still technically a medial issue. And Charlie Roub is not winning any awards for rational thinking by comparing addicts who are using drugs to dangerous criminals like bank robbers.

Let me give you an example. If camera crews followed around bank robbers and aired it on national television, would you not use that footage as evidence? If we did nothing, people would ask, 'Well why didn't you do anything?
--Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

The actions of the Shelby Police Chief, wreaks of an elected official trying to cover his own arse. Why is it alright for Roub to appear on TV in front of confiscated contraband whilst sprucing the successes of his dedicated officers but it’s not okay to show the associated problems? His outrage just doesn’t pass the logic test.

I know these people. I’ve known them for a long time. I just didn't appreciate the whole thing. The show gives this area a bad name. You pick on an area like Richland County, and it makes us look like we're the worst there is in the country.
--Shelby Police Chief, Charlie Roub

METRICH
It’s interesting to note or even ironic, that the Shelby Police Department is part of METRICH. They are a drug fighting collective, originally formed in 1986 to service Richland County but have since grown to include several nearby jurisdictions. To get an idea how an METRICH operates - the organisation that dictates Shelby’s anti-drug strategies - I checked out their website only to discover that the last update was in 2007. Hmm. Digging deeper, I noticed that the News section has an amazing collection of two articles! One from 2005 and the other from 2004. I suggest you read the 2004 article, 14 Arrested On Drug Charges At Ripplefest. Another interesting feature is the section called “What Drugs Look Like”. But I hope they don’t use this for new officers doing field work because the page is blank. 

Best of all though, is their incredible dictionary of drug terms. I have to say that every possible combination of street slang for drugs is included. Did you know that “Pot” is street talk for marijuana? Or “Agonies” means withdrawal symptoms and when you’re “Totally Spent”, you have a MDMA hangover. Oh, and “Garbage” is what they call inferior quality drugs. My personal favourite is, Zoinked - intoxicated on drugs to the point of uselessness. 

More obscure terms include:
Chestbonz - the one who takes the biggest bong hit
The Witch - heroin
Tampon - a fat joint
Zig Zag Man - LSD; marijuana; marijuana rolling papers
Galloping Horse - heroin
Ghost Busting - smoking cocaine; searching for white particles in the belief that they are crack
Go into a Sewer - to inject a drug
Balling - vaginally implanted cocaine
Interplanetary Mission - travel from one crackhouse to another in search of crack
Queen Ann's Lace - marijuana
Up Against The Stem - addicted to smoking marijuana

And in case you didn’t already know, there’s the term, “Thing” - heroin; cocaine; main drug interest at the moment. I imagine it would be used in a sentence like this: “Where’s my thing” or “Bring that thing over here” or “Is this thing for me?”. I’m glad they cleared that one up.

Growing Concerns
Since the news broke about the Shelby Police Department filing charges, two nearby counties, the Shelby Mayor and some community leaders have publicly given their support. This is a worry. Not only do they have some redneck Police Chief living in his own delusional world but there’s a queue forming of equally disturbed people, willing to join him. Incredibly, most of them hold positions of power.

Filing these charges raises some interesting issues. Does this mean that documentary makers filming the horrors of war can be charged for showing crimes against humanity? Is the Shelby Police Chief simply embarrassed because civilians can find people using heroin but his officers can’t? Does the documentary show the community to have a bigger drug problem than the Police Chief likes to admit? 

If there’s one truth to be learnt from all this, it’s that only the "War on Drugs" could produce a scenario like this.

Charges Against TV Crew Garner Support In Shelby
Jami Kinton 
March 2011

SHELBY -- A pending decision to charge local residents and crew members who took part in a recent episode of "Our America" has won the support of local officials.

On Monday, the Shelby Police Department filed a general offense report -- the initial police document generated upon a complaint -- that included the offenses of "corrupting another with drugs," "drug abuse" and "child endangerment."

Shelby Police Chief Charlie Roub said he would be also be looking into filing charges against national news correspondent Lisa Ling, the production crew and others involved in the episode that aired March 22 on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

A media representative from the network declined to comment on a possible lawsuit.

The recent hour-long program was a sequel to a show that aired on "Oprah" in 2008.

The Shelby police report his been forwarded to the Richland County Prosecutor's office.

Assistant Richland County Prosecutor Brent Robinson has not returned calls to the media.

Local resident included in the episode -- from Plymouth, Shelby and Mansfield -- were seen allegedly injecting themselves with heroin, sometimes in the presence of a toddler.

Richland County Children Services is aware of the situation.

Plymouth Police Chief Charlie Doan said he, too, was angered by the footage. Doan said his department was actively involved in the taping of the initial episode, allowing the crew to shoot at the Plymouth department and assigning officers to tag along on taping that took place inside the village.

When the first episode aired showing Plymouth residents consuming drugs, Doan said he was livid.

"I was on the phone that same night with the network," he said. "I was hot. They never filmed that stuff when we were around. When I called them they basically said, 'We were trying to shoot a show.' I do think that the crew should still be held accountable, but that's where the prosecutor comes in."

Doan said he had many questions after viewing the footage.

"Anyone who supplies drugs should be charged, but it's a matter of proving who did what," he said. "They show (a woman) shooting up, but there's a lot we didn't see. Where do you think that money came from? I doubt they stole it with the presence of the TV crew there. Hopefully, the crew didn't watch them steal it, too."

Although two of the people on the show live in Plymouth, Doan said it didn't appear any criminal activity took place within his jurisdiction.

"If it did, I would pursue charges, too," Doan said. "If (Roub) can get something from this, he won't lack support from me."

Richland County Sheriff Steve Sheldon said he spoke with Roub on Tuesday morning about the issue. Sheldon said he couldn't speculate on whether or not the county would decide to join forces.

"Two hundred things could happen from here," he said. "We're waiting to see what the prosecutor says."

In response to some angry community members, Roub stressed that Shelby Police are not pursuing a lawsuit.

"It's a criminal act, not a civil act," he said. "There is evidence that a crime was committed, but a lot can happen from here."

Roub said the time criminal actions took place also will be considered.

As police chief, Roub said he has an obligation to address the situation.

"Let me give you an example," Roub said. "If camera crews followed around bank robbers and aired it on national television, would you not use that footage as evidence? If we did nothing, people would ask, 'Well why didn't you do anything?'"

Shelby Mayor Marilyn John found no fault in Roub's efforts.

"If illegal activity has taken place anywhere in the county, it is up to law enforcement to pursue it," she said. "If it happened during the filming, then it's up to them to investigate it and address it."

Doan is exasperated.

"I was sick after the first show, and didn't even watch all of the second," he said. "It seemed like it was done more for entertainment than anything else. It just didn't end up being what I imagined.”

Related Articles

Thursday, 24 March 2011

Soft on Drugs? ... Soft in the Head!

Darren “Maaaate” Marton
Today, in the The Daily Telegraph, Darren Marton wrote. 

I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

And he is dead right. He is not an expert on drugs and forms his views from empirical data (his own experience). Certainly not worthy of consideration for a national or state drug policy.

But it’s more than that. Like most anti-harm minimisation zealots, Marton’s use of the truth, is dubious at best. It’s this willingness to lie along with a mix of fanaticism - in opposition to harm minimisation - that makes people like Darren Marton so dangerous.

Marton’s recent piece in The Daily Telegraph(below) is a prime example of how anti-drug rhetoric from politicians can be misconstrued as some wise, righteous advice that can only benefit the community. But lying about the facts is not helping anyone, especially the families of drug users who have suffered the consequences from decades of propaganda. Marton’s message is just an extension of that propaganda, hurting the very people he is supposed to care so much about.

Claiming we have never had a "War on Drugs" is an insult to the millions of people incarcerated around the globe who have done nothing wrong but suffer an addiction. Imagine how do African-Americans and Latinos in the US feel when someone denies that they are victims of a largely racist policy? Although African-Americans make up 12.2 percent of the population and 13% of regular drug users in the US, they account for 74% of all Americans sent to prison for drug possession crimes. In other words, African-Americans were sent to state prisons for drug offences 13 times more often than other races. It’s a similar story for Latinos. How can Darren Marton possibly defend a Zero Tolerance policy when it causes results like this? Look at the crack-cocaine disparity laws in the US. During his reign as US President, Ronald Reagan - whose strategies form the basis for Marton’s suggestions e.g. “Just Say No” campaign, tough drug laws etc. - increased penalties for crack possession, 100 times that of powder cocaine. Of course, crack is widely used in poorer suburbs largely populated with minorities like African-Americans and Latinos whilst cocaine powder was then exclusively for the richer, white middle-upper classes. This is the reality of Marton’s suggestions. The fact is, simple slogan campaigns like “Just Say No” or his own “No Way” don’t work and never have. They might appease nervous parents or posturing politicians but history and research have ruled them out as ineffective.

Australia minorities are not exempt from the harsh reality of the "War on Drugs" either. Tough drug laws inflict much more damage to poorer families than the middle-upper class. For example, most drug dealers are addicts on low incomes who fund their addiction by selling to other addicts and friends. This “crime” is non violent and between consenting adults yet it is the focus of a Zero Tolerance policy championed by those who are far removed from this world. At the other end of the scale are the largely hidden, middle-upper class addicts who often have the means to fund their addiction albeit, only for a while. They often can afford clever solicitors, have family support and let’s face it, scrub up better in a court room.

Denying we have ever had a "War on Drugs" is disingenuous and to suggest that we are somehow too liberal with our drug policy is wrong. What Marton fails to tell us is that our official policy of Harm Minimisation has never been properly implemented. Anti-drug zealots love to rattle on about harm reduction programs like needle exchanges, methadone etc. but it is only one pillar of the Harm Minimisation policy. The other two pillars are Supply Reduction(law enforcement) and Demand Reduction(education). If you believe people like Marton, harm minimisation is all about an easy ride for users and taking away resources for prevention and law enforcement. But Harm Reduction only receives 3% of the drug budget whilst law enforcement(Supply Reduction) gets a whopping 56%. Education(Demand Reduction) gets 23% while treatment gets a measly 17%. 

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Those who oppose Harm Minimisation universally favour Zero Tolerance. What they fail to explain though, is that most drug policies in reality are based on Zero Tolerance with smatterings of Harm Minimisation programs. Not exactly the “social experiment policy” that Marton claims. 

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren? If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Apart from being poorly written, Marton’s piece is pure hyperbole. Exaggerated sound bites, warnings of a doomed future and conspiracy theories tossed together in a disjointed, mess of ideas. But this is the level of competence expected from crusaders like Darren Marton. A far cry from carefully researched studies by qualified experts with decades of experience. I can’t help but think of that famous quote from The Simpsons - Won’t someone please think of the children! And maybe we should. In the US, African-American children were nearly nine times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children and Latino children were three times more likely to have a parent incarcerated than white children. Another success for Marton’s Zero Tolerance strategy.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

In his article, Marton also mentions “The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences” and how “outrageous” it is that former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC wants a change to our drug laws. Maybe if Marton looked a bit closer he would have noticed that yesterday, several Liberal Party members attended a presentation in Parliament House by former ACT Supreme Court Judge Ken Crispin who warned us about the problems with our current approach to tackling drug crime. Dr Crispin said that the majority of Australians in jail were there because of drugs or mental illness and most would reoffend because they had not received proper treatment. He added that despite the billions spent on combating drugs, the price of heroin and cocaine had dropped but supply had steadily increased. The Libs who attended, fully support the idea of drug law reform and praised the ex judge’s suggestions. Surely a blow for Marton who relies so heavily on the anti-drug rhetoric of political parties, especially the Libs.

In summary, Darren Marton’s baseless article should concern all of us. With no support from professionals and experts, Marton and co. are left with the only option available ... to play on public ignorance and emotions. If Darren Marton actually spent some time researching the topic of drug policy and the effect on society he might come to a different conclusion. Instead, like so many other anti-drug crusaders, he keeps reiterating the same old, debunked suggestions that are rejected by most professionals in the AOD industry, researchers, scientists, welfare workers, doctors, economists and drug experts. And as history has shown, these suggestions when put into practice are not only dangerous but cause far more damage than drugs ever will. 


Soft On Drugs? Simply Say No
Darren Marton
March 2011


I AM not an expert in the drug and alcohol field. I am a layman who has learned his lessons through life experience.

It is of serious concern to me that proponents of harm minimisation favour the legalisation for personal use of some prohibited drugs.

The former NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Nicholas Cowdery QC, called at The Daily Telegraph's People's Parliament debate for the decriminalisation of some drug offences. This is outrageous.

For a number of years now it has been claimed that we have lost the war on drugs.

But we have never had a war on drugs. For some, moving to a second phase of harm-minimisation - legalisation - was always the final objective.

But I don't believe Australians are the type of people to wave the white flag.

The NSW drug and alcohol budget in 2009/10 was $140 million. In addition to the services that funding provides, the NSW Government also provides funding for treatment services.

In other words, your taxes mop up the mess. It is a social experiment policy, and a reactive one at that.

Kids as young as 11 have been calling for better drug education with the nation's largest youth survey revealing they feel "ill equipped" to deal with drugs.

When are we going to start listening to the most vulnerable people in the community?

It is far easier to build a young boy or girl than to repair a man or woman.

So it is imperative that we protect our most vulnerable with a focus or prevention and early intervention.

I ask the question: What kind of future do we want to leave our children and our grandchildren?

If it's one that protects our young, strengthens families, and provides safer communities, then let's do it.

Darren Marton is Director of The No-Way Campaign


Related Articles

Friday, 18 March 2011

Drug Hysteria & The Great Doctor Witch Hunt

 DOCTORS are writing thousands of suspect prescriptions for a pharmaceutical variation of heroin, much of it destined for the black market, forcing the federal government to investigate the actions of 50 medical practitioners.


The headline says, ‘Legal Heroin’. Seriously … Who writes this crap? OxyContin and MS-Contin are NOT a ‘pharmaceutical variation of heroin’. Heroin is a pharmaceutical variation of morphine. MS-Contin is just slow release morphine and OxyContin is similar except the active ingredient is oxycondone - a synthetic variation of morphine. 

Drug Hysteria 
It is this type of trash journalism that helps fuel the drug hysteria that we have become so accustom to. With help from the media, we have managed to demonise drugs to the point where the mere mention of heroin or amphetamines fills our head with images of needle littered alleyways infested with strung out junkies. We may not realise it but virtually no one alive today has experienced life without drug prohibition or the constant drum of anti-drug campaigns. Is it any wonder that so many people fear drugs without knowing the facts?

Since the 1970s, we have been bombarded with anti-drug propaganda courtesy of Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs”. Not since the era of Reefer Madness and the Temperance movement had we seen such government vigour to demonise drugs. The US government’s commitment was so intense that it used all of it’s might to install their anti-drug policy on the whole world.  And just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, along came Ronald Reagan. Any hope of rationality entering the drug debate was gone along with evidence based policy, human rights and logic. Reagan’s reign of terror introduced such doozies as mandatory sentencing, three strikes and you’re out, the crack-cocaine disparity laws and the “Just Say No” mindset. Damning drug users was now a permanent weapon for ambitious politicians, playing on the fear of parents and a gullible public. Conservatives, moralisers and the media went along for the ride. The US’s "War on Drugs" was now a global fight.

They say that the first victim of war is the truth. And the "War on Drugs" is no exception. When it comes to drugs, no claim is too outrageous and no strategy is off limits. Politicians and anti-drug groups are free to make any claim they want, regardless of the truth or reality. Drugs are now used as a tool to further someone’s career or push a certain ideology but the underlying message is fear. Luckily we now have the internet and a growing population who have used drugs recreationally and survived. The empty rhetoric from politicians - who openly admit to previous drug use but warn off others not to repeat their so called mistakes - is increasingly falling on deaf ears. Despite the predictions over the last 100 years of impending doom where drugged out zombies roam the streets or our hospitals are over flowing with dope smoking, paranoid schizophrenics, life goes on and the sky remains firmly in place. But the real issue that underpins the perceived drug problem is the specious strategies championed by the very people who keep making these dire predictions.


The Great Doctor Witch Hunt
My doctor has been telling me this for years - GPs are terrified of being targeted for over-prescribing opioids or benzos. He also told me that many GPs will under-prescribed much needed medications or not at all. They don’t feel good about it but sadly, fear is now a stronger incentive than best medical practice. My doctor is a pragmatic man and tells it like it is. he explains that moralisers, politicians and conservatives despise the misuse of drugs and if a few innocent doctors are wrongly charged, well it’s a small price to pay to catch those who feed the rabid junkie scourge. 

Human Services Minister Tanya Plibersek warned that doctors caught doing the wrong thing would be ``put on notice'' and face possible sanctions. The Professional Services Review could be called in, while serious fraud cases will be referred to the commonwealth director of public prosecutions, she said. 

This is a regular topic I discuss with my doctor  and he is as adamant as myself that the "War on Drugs" causes far more problems than it fixes. It’s probably ironic that during our conversation, he pauses to phone the health department to get an authorisation for my monthly script. A script that provides me with enough daily morphine to kill over 10 healthy adults. I always wonder while he attends his phone call if he is afraid of being targeted like the GPs he mentioned to me. If he is afraid, he has never shown it.

As part of a Medicare crackdown, 50 doctors across Australia have come under scrutiny for prescribing unusually high levels of drugs to patients aged under 50 who are less likely to need pain management medication.

When I hear about ‘prescribing unusually high levels of drugs’ I often wonder what doses are they talking about. How much is too high? As I previously mentioned, my daily requirements are huge compared to someone on 3 x 10mg tablets per day. But some pain sufferers take triple of what I am prescribed and methadone patients are often given twice my equivalent dose. It seems logical that some patients receive high doses to meet their medical needs whilst others suffice with a lower dose. My question is, how do bureaucrats determine the maximum level any one person needs to reduce pain?

I recently wrote about a situation in South Australia where DASSA (Drugs of Dependence Unit within Drug and Alcohol Services SA) have taken over the task of dealing with pain sufferers. DASSA’s main clientele are drug addicts and therefore lack the expertise to deal with pain patients who require large doses of pain medication. In typical bureaucratic style, DASSA has set upper limits on opioid dosages so that those who once had sufficient coverage for their pain issues now have to reduce their medication. Can we even imagine how much stress and suffering that causes those who are in chronic pain? Many of them can’t even get out of bed let alone attend a drug addiction centre like Waranilla at Norwood. While anyone else with a medical condition can see the doctor of their choice, those who need specialised pain management, must line up with methadone patients at drug addiction centres. 

Since the policy has changed many sufferers are now unable to work, care for themselves and their families, and are in constant pain. Things were working perfectly well before the policy change was made for no apparent reason

Tanya Plibersek
Bungled policies like the South Australian situation are a result of drug hysteria, political posturing and ignorance. But at what point does ignorance stop being an excuse for elected leaders who are paid to implement policies in the best interest of the community? And what about when a politician is not ignorant but still willing to rattle on with the usual “Tough on Drugs" rhetoric. 

The misuse of prescription narcotics is a growing problem that destroys lives and tears communities apart
--Tanya Plibersek

Human Services and Social Inclusion Minister, Tanya Plibersek has a good reason not to succumb to political pressure and repeating the standard government line on drugs. Her husband was once a drug addict and spent nearly three years in prison for a heroin distribution charge. If anyone should understand the futility of prohibition and tough law enforcement on drug addicts then Tanya Plibersek is it. 

You have to wonder if threatening doctors is really a sensible thing to do ... especially coming from Tanya Plibersek who should know better. There is already enough fear amongst medical practitioners who are reluctant to prescribe much needed pain medication. The insatiable desire to stop drug misuse is simply not balanced with providing important medication. Instilling fear into prescribing GPs does not help address the problem of drug abuse.

Maybe Tanya has never understood what a harrowing experience heroin addiction and prison really are? Tanya’s husband, Michael Coutts-Trotter and his heroin related problems ended two decades ago but since then, he has managed to become the Chief of Staff to the NSW Treasurer, Director-General of the NSW Department of Commerce and was appointed the Director-General of the NSW Department of Education and Training in 2007. An amazing recovery for a banged up junkie.

But it seems that her husband’s past has not managed to influence her present thinking. In January 2011, Tanya reinforced the government’s support of failed drug policies with an article in The Australian. Her attempt to appear appalled by the unethical spending habits of Australians was really a support piece for various government policies with criticism of those who are selfish and unethical in their decision making by contravening those policies. There was confirmation that the government’s internet filter would stop sickos viewing child abuse or violent sex, warnings of unfluoridated water harming our children’s teeth, praise for “the very successful national drug strategy” and even some finger wagging at those who buy expensive bottled water when they could drink some “good old five-star Sydney water”.

Many consumers think carefully about the ethical farming of veal, for example, but think nothing about the chain of misery and exploitation that brings them their Saturday night cocaine. Many Australians wouldn't eat foie gras because the practice of force-feeding geese is objectionable, but drug mules desperate enough to swallow condoms full of cocaine don't get a second thought.

The ABC reported in September that Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel is responsible for about half the cocaine importation in eastern Australia. More than 28,000 people have died in Mexico since 2006 as a result of the wars between rival drug cartels and law enforcement. The country is on the verge of collapse and brutal mass murders are becoming commonplace as drug lords vie with one another for lucrative control of regions.

Many of the so-called feelgood recreational drugs produced in Australia are made in circumstances in which violence is seen as a necessary tool in the process of production and distribution. The last person you bought from might be perfectly charming, but you can be almost certain that somewhere along the chain, violence and intimidation have occurred to bring you your drugs.

But where Tanya really went astray was with her attempt to cash in on the recently popular trend of blaming those who use “so-called feelgood recreational drugs” for feeding the violent drug cartels in Mexico. This, of course is ridiculous and more evidence of how prepared some politicians are to deceive us about drugs. And coming from Plibersek - who has living proof sharing the same bed - it’s even more diabolical. The fact is, drug cartels only exists for one reason … drug prohibition. It’s the very policies that bucket heads like Plibersek push that causes the 35,000 plus deaths in Mexico. If anyone is selfish and unethical in their decision making, it’s the bloody politicians.

Street Drugs vs. Pharmaceutical Drugs
The problem with heroin, cocaine and speed is that they are usually made by criminals in makeshift labs and passed down through various dealers who cut it at each stage. This means that the strength is unknown and full of god-knows-what. Pharmaceutical drugs though, are 100% pure with a known dosage. Some addicts will turn to Pharmaceutical drugs after a bad experience with street drugs or are wary of wasting more money on low quality gear. Surely, a better outcome in the spirit of harm minimisation.

There will always be people who inject drugs and there will always be people with narcotics dependencies. The positive advantage with OxyContin is that users know exactly what they're getting, whereas with heroin, they don't. Many now prefer OxyContin because it's clean and it's safer.

The pressing issue, as always is the law. If these drugs were prescribed to addicts in a controlled and clinical setting, there would be no diversion or over prescribing. We tend to forget that all drugs, including heroin, morphine and cocaine were once available to addicts as part of their treatment plan. They weren’t looked down on or stigmatised like today’s junkies. Most addicts worked, had families and lived like everyone else of the time. And the truly amazing fact is that since prohibition, we have spent trillions of dollars and sent millions of people to prison trying to stop drug use but addiction rates have remained the same. It seems that having hard drugs freely available via a doctor’s prescription yielded no more addicts than ruthlessly locking up those suffering from addiction. Armed with these facts, we, as a society should demand that politicians and law makers abide by the evidence and expert advice and stop this futile war on people. 


Legal 'Heroin' Sold To Addicts
Eamonn Duff and Daniel Lane
March 2011
EXCLUSIVE

DOCTORS are writing thousands of suspect prescriptions for a pharmaceutical variation of heroin, much of it destined for the black market, forcing the federal government to investigate the actions of 50 medical practitioners.

More than 580,000 taxpayer-funded scripts were approved in NSW in the past two years for OxyContin and similar opiate painkillers, such as OxyNorm and MS-Contin, dubbed ''hillbilly heroin''.

For every $34 script of OxyContin, users are obtaining a box of 20, 80 milligram tablets. Each tablet can then sell on the black market for as much as $50. With further subsidies to pensioners, the box can be bought for as little as $6 - and its contents might be sold on the street for $1000.

While the medication has revolutionised care for chronic pain sufferers, it is leaking out of the health system to such an extent that police and health experts warn it could soon surpass street heroin and ice as the needle addict's drug of choice.

The prescription opioids are obtained unlawfully by dealers and addicts who ''doctor shop'' for multiple prescriptions. One patient visited 46 doctors in three months and obtained 119 scripts, primarily for OxyContin, the government has confirmed.

Sydney doctor Alan Saunders, who has been targeted by doctor shoppers, warned: "It's not just OxyContin - it's valium and all the other drugs. The government is subsidising the drug trade."

Pharmacists say they are confronted with stolen and fake scripts, while legitimate pain sufferers are obtaining the drug and then selling it.

The government acknowledges the problem. Federal Minister for Human Services Tanya Plibersek confirmed to The Sun-Herald that Medicare had identified 50 doctors for ''unusually high levels of prescription writing for drugs such as OxyContin and OxyNorm''.

"The misuse of prescription narcotics is a growing problem which destroys lives and tears communities apart. Doctors suspected of making these drugs available to patients who do not require them for clinical purposes will be put on notice."

With a slow-release formula, OxyContin capsules are designed to work through the day. Illicit users, however, discard the other binding agents and extract the drug in its purest form so, when injected, it delivers an instant hit.

According to new state government statistics released to The Sun-Herald, more than $557 million worth of illegal drugs were seized in the state last year - more than double the street value of the previous year's tally of $260 million. The haul included $185.2 million worth of cannabis, $126 million of cocaine, $195 million of amphetamines and $28 million of MDMA/ecstasy. NSW Police Minister Michael Daley said the figures showed police were doing ''a fantastic job keeping our streets safe'', adding: ''It's millions of doses of deadly substances that have been kept out of the veins of would-be drug users.''

Significantly, NSW police also seized more than $25 million worth of heroin. At the same time, a taxpayer-funded version of the drug is infiltrating the black market. The commander of the NSW drug squad, Nick Bingham, said: ''We're talking pharmaceutical-grade heroin. It's highly sought after in the drug-using community and, unfortunately, it is finding its way [onto the streets]. To be honest, police don't particularly want to have to target prescription opiates when there are other important things to tackle, such as organised crime.''

Inspector Bingham is part of the recently formed National Pharmaceutical Misuse Strategy Committee and said prescription opiates were ''high on the agenda … One of the discussion points is educating doctors in regards to prescriptions … there needs to be tighter scrutiny.'' The director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St Vincent's Hospital, Alex Wodak, agrees major reforms are needed to improve the way opiates are prescribed by the medical profession: ''The process needs to be far more discriminating, more realistic, more careful.

''GPs do the bulk of this work. They're under tremendous pressure and could do with better assistance from the whole system, whether it be from medicine doctors, psychiatrists, pain doctors or better guidelines tailored to them.''

Dr Wodak also referred to the ''long overdue'' national real-time database which, if implemented, could alert authorities when ''runners'' try to use multiple scripts at different chemists, at different locations.

''The Commonwealth seems interested in trying to get all the states to adopt a similar live system,'' he said. ''If we are serious about this issue, we have to form a national response.''

But Richard Mattick, from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, fears a crackdown could hit genuine pain sufferers.

''Let's not forget these medications are terribly important to the community,'' he said. ''If you have a loved one affected by cancer or serious pain, you want them to receive the best possible care and these medications are much better, much safer than anything previously available. The community is better served and, in a way, that has allowed prescribing to be more generous.

''The danger here is that we see the bad side but don't balance that against the need.''

Gideon Warhaft, of the NSW Users & AIDS Association, argues: ''There will always be people who inject drugs and there will always be people with narcotics dependencies. The positive advantage with OxyContin is that users know exactly what they're getting, whereas with heroin, they don't. Many now prefer OxyContin because it's clean and it's safer.''


Related Articles