Marijuana More Dangerous than First Thought: PFFFT!

Marijuana gives you pimples It does, it does ... if I smoke some grass and I get the muchies and go to 7-11 and buy a block of Dairy Milk and 2 days later I’m getting ackers everywhere. See, I told ya. 

Is this part of an official research paper from a prohibitionist groups? It very well could be considering the logic of some recent reports. Read on to see the evidence that pundits like Miranda Devine would love so much.

The quest to demonise marijuana has been blazing since the 1920s when the US linked it to violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, especially by Mexicans. This was followed by the movie, Reefer Madness which was the epitome of anti-drug campaigns back then. It is now looked upon as a gay frolic in government sponsored propaganda. The sixties found an explosion of grass smokers that has never really died down as research was continually finding it a relatively harmless drug.  Maybe the eagerness to prove it totally harmless was a tad overdone but nevertheless, it still never proved to be a fraction as dangerous as alcohol. Each year, there was another report that marijuana was harmless and opinions slowly changed to accept marijuana as a ‘soft’ drug.

But a good thing can’t last forever. Not satisfied that an evil drug might actually be accepted by society, the anti-drug groups decided to provide some of their own research that favoured their personal views. With multiple conservative governments worldwide and the growing influence of the religious right, it paved the way for the heavily right wing media outlets to produce their own unique research results. Of course, after 30 years of scientific research, it is difficult to provide alternative facts but like ‘Intelligent Design’ was supposedly science, the new research was supposedly ‘new evidence’. A recent report by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, put together a sample group of marijuana smokers and found some damming evidence.

Heavy marijuana use can boost blood levels of a particular protein, perhaps raising a person's risk of a heart attack or stroke, US government researchers said on Tuesday. Dr Jean Lud Cadet of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings point to another example of long-term harm from marijuana. 

-AAP. Marijuana more dangerous than first thought: study

What! Heart attack or stroke? From a particular protein? More details please.

“Levels of a protein called apolipoprotein C-III were found to be 30 per cent higher in the marijuana users compared to the others. This protein is involved in the body's metabolism of triglycerides -- a type of fat found in the blood -- and higher levels cause increased levels of triglycerides. High levels of triglycerides can contribute to hardening of the arteries or thickening of the artery walls, raising the risk of stroke, heart attack and heart disease.”

-Dr Jean Lud Cadet

Does this mean marijuana is really dangerous? What does this mean for a person who maybe smokes a a joint each night or has a few pipes on Friday and Saturday night? Should I fear this new scientific evidence?

“Chronic marijuana use is not only causing people to get high, it's actually causing long-term adverse effects in patients who use too much of the drug. Chronic marijuana abuse is not so benign.”

-Dr Jean Lud Cadet

Hang on ... CHRONIC USE?

The marijuana users in the study averaged smoking 78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week, based on self-reported drug history, the researchers said.

-AAP. Marijuana more dangerous than first thought: study

The smokers in the study were stoners of the century. The lightest smoker had 11 joints a day or about 30-50 bongs ... minimum! The highest was 50 joints a day or 150-250 bongs. An increase of only 30% in apolipoprotein C-III levels which in turn might increase levels of triglycerides for people who smoke extremely massive amounts of cannibis is really clutching at straws. So what does this mean to the average marijuana smoker? Well ... nothing really. Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Bruce Mirken put some perspective on the study.

"We're talking about people who are stoned all the time. We're talking about the marijuana equivalent of the guy in the alley clutching a bottle of cheap wine. If you do anything to that level of excess, it might well have some untoward effects, whether it's marijuana or wine or broccoli" 

-Bruce Mirken. Marijuana Policy Project spokesman

Oh, I see. A study from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. A well know anti-drugs organisation who perform studies hand picked by the US government. You know the same government who manages the “War on Drugs”. The same government with a Zero Tolerance policy. The same government who have nearly half a million marijuana users put in jail each year. The same government who have a HIV/AIDS rate 1000% higher than Australia largely because they refused to give out clean needles to addicts for years. Can a report from them actually be balanced?

Bruce Mirken again puts the report into perspective.

"Even if you take this finding at face value, it's not at all clear that it has any relevance to the real world because there is still no data showing higher rates of mortality among marijuana smokers. If this was a significant cause of cardiovascular disease, where are the bodies?"

-Bruce Mirken. Marijuana Policy Project spokesman

Rudd & Welfare Payments for Drug Users?

Last year, ex PM John Howard said he was going to quarantine welfare payments for people convicted of drug offences. In an interview before Howard's announcement, Rudd had already said he was in favour of restricting payments of drug addicted parents. Is Rudd going to invoke Howard's harsher strategy?

With the introduction of the ‘income management debit card’ in last night’s budget, the basics have been established and the plan is to roll it our nationally starting with Aboriginal communities in NT. Can the government resist extending it too far?

An article from Blogocracy last week talks about the proposed debit card for Aboriginal parents who are negligent towards their children. It quotes an extract from an article in The Australian.

A NATIONAL welfare card that will allow the Government to control payments to negligent parents across the country will be unveiled in Tuesday’s budget.

The debit card - to be introduced in selected indigenous communities before being rolled out across Australia - will ensure half of the cardholders’ welfare payments are spent on approved goods and services, such as food and clothing for their children, rather than wasted on alcohol and drugs. The card will not carry a photograph but will be PIN-coded to prevent it being sold on the black market and abused by welfare-dependent parents.

The Government last night confirmed plans for the card, saying it would slash red tape for business and make it easier for welfare recipients to obtain goods by widening the number of outlets where quarantined welfare payments could be accepted.

It will initially be introduced into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and the Kimberley region of Western Australia, where the Government has begun quarantining welfare payments to improve standards of care for children. But the Government plans to roll the program out across the country and into white communities.

-The Australian

The article is prior to the budget so there is still some uncertainty. Nevertheless, comments started to speculate whether the welfare card should be distributed into the white community. Instinctively many started on why drug users should have their payments restricted or even stopped. There was plenty of opinions both ways but a comment from one reader put the problem in perspective:

This is a band-aid solution - it does nothing to address the real issues. I don’t think it will result in any real change at all. People aren’t going to stop problem drinking or drug use because of a card. When you make it harder, you just make people more deceptive.

-jm of adelaide

JM of Adelaide had hit the real issue. The crackdown on negligent parents was not the only problem, the use of penalties on drug addicts was. A debit card as a welfare penalty is one more issue that people with health issues like addiction have to deal with. There is an underlying health problem being ignored and applying a restriction will just create more desperate and maybe more deceptive practices to obtain money for drugs. Blogocracy content and it's readers are leagues above the usual Daily Telegraph/Herald-Sun/Courier etc. crap but many of the comments made were still ignorant of the health issue and were happy to dish out harsh penalties to those who really need help.

... if they test positive to drugs they automatically go on to the welfare debit card, if they are not already on it, and are subject to testing for the next 3 months. If they are already on the debit card they lose 10% of their cash payment, and 10% each time they test positive, after a month of no positive test they go back to normal. If they wipe out their complete cash payment Centrelink starts paying their rent and the have the debit card for food. At the end of the day though there is only so much you can do to help people.

When you drive down the street on a dole Thursday and see people passed out in the median strip there is something wrong. As the tax payers who support the system that gives them the money to do this we are responsible. The current system is not making the problem any better so we have to try something different, and anything we can do to stop them drinking themselves to death has to be an improvement.

-Link

I was interested to know how Link deducted that the “people passed out in the median strip” receive payment on “dole Thursday”. The fact is there is no set day for unemployment payments. Similar to how my brother once said that the streets were out of control on ‘methadone day’ assuming that methadone patients got dosed on the same, one day of the week. Interestingly, he said it was Thursday as well. Also, Link’s plan to penalise drug use is as ignorant as it gets. It’s a familiar argument though, where if tested positive, instead of getting help, you get punished. What if the person was given drugs for free? There’s no misspending of their welfare payment but would be penalised anyway. Moral welfare?

Why should government welfare go to supporting a drug habit(thats all drugs not just the illegal ones).Which currently they do.Should government be in the business of encouraging its citizens drug dependence.Then having to pay for the medical conditions that result from that dependence.

-sandgroper

When it becomes mainstream for welfare, who determines who receives the card and what they can buy? If someone has a drug problem are they allowed to buy smokes or porn? What about a heroin addict on treatment, would they qualify? And if they lapse for for a few weeks, what then? Most people on treatment lapse sometimes and if they don’t have cash ... that leaves begging, borrowing or crime.

I still like the idea of drug & alcohol testing people when they get the dole. -Link

So you go out for a family diner paid by your brother, have a few glasses of red wine and tested the next day. Where does this leave you? What about pornography testing? Gambling testing? The ‘income management debit card’ cannot be used to purchase alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash.

There was even that favourite of the modern right, “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”.

If you want the money it is because you want to spend it on things the government did not provide it for.

-sandgroper

The need to punish drug users was often outweighing the actual discussion of restricting welfare payments of those who neglect their children. It was becoming a forum for why drug users/addicts should get payment at all.

If any parents, aboriginal or otherwise, want to kill themselves with drugs and alcohol they can do it for all I care. I just don’t see why tax-payers should subsidise it, and if this card goes towards preventing that then I’m all for it.

-Banjo of Brisbane

And even this.

Yet a terrible thought crossed my mind going through this topic. Some of the worst addicted at worst might kill their children in the belief they will get more for their addictions, or at the least will blame the kids for their reduced ability to obtain drugs and alcohol and foist even more and terrible abuse on them.

-Adrian of Nowra

If the purpose of the ‘income management debit card’ is to stop purchases of alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling or to withdraw cash, what's to stop the government expanding the program to include workers? The current plan is targeted at a specific group but the government hasn't announced it's drug policy yet.

A lot of posters seem to assume that only welfare recipients neglect or abuse their children. What about parents who have jobs and waste their money on drugs, alcohol and gambling and neglect or abuse their children? Will the government confiscate their wages and issue them with a card?

-janetheunhowardhugger

Would you support the quarantining of payments for all Australian parents who use drugs and neglect their children? The moralists will argue feverishly for this and in today's political climate, it may be a vote winner. Somehow though, I feel the emphasis will be on the drug usage separately from the neglect of children. The one bright spot is that both Nicola Roxon and Kevin Rudd have mentioned that future drug policies need to be more individualised. An extremely important point that Howard's Zero Tolerance badly missed with it's blanket approach. Remember Howard was determined to change drug terminology and lump all drug use into one evil bucket of death.

And I’m seeking to conclude our point about child welfare to say that that policy was put out by us in July this year prior to Mr Howard making any such statement. Secondly, on the question of broader quarantining of welfare payments, we believe that the smart thing to do there is to take the advice of a combination of the police and the relevant health authorities as to what is best in individual circumstances. And I’ve tried to look at the detail of what Mr Howard has said. It’s full of holes, and I’d much rather see what concrete proposals he’s really additionally suggesting here. Our approach to this is to make sure that we’ve got a tailored approach to individual circumstances which is based on the best law enforcement advice, and the best advice of the health professionals.

-Kevin Rudd. Radio Interview ABC 774 Melbourne. November 2007

Once again we are seeing a health issue being treated with disciplinary action. I have no qualms about parents who neglect their children being scrutinised and dealt with but these new measures and the possible outcomes are also targeting drug addicts are a priority. They are not targeting drug addicts to help them as there are many other ways to help that are being ignored. Punitive actions are counter productive and do not address the core problems. I once described these actions as fighting a fire. You need to attack the base not the tips of the flame. It might dull the fire and keep it out of sight from a distance but the core fuel is burning hot as ever. Simply put, welfare quarantining for drug addicts solely because of their drug use does not fix the problem, it makes it worst. Medicine diagnosed addiction hundreds of years ago. Society just chose to treat it as a crime.

Are Flat Earth Journalist Intelligent? No ... Just Dangerous

The talking snake told Eve, the only woman on earth, to eat a forbidden apple ... now men grow bald and women get saggy buzums. Miranda Devine tells us that Zero Tolerance is working and a good thing ... we are now a drug free society with no addiction, no crime, no misery and everyone has seen the light, that drugs are bad.

Why is it that some journalists can write utter shite and still keep their job? Not just shite but simple lies, untruths, biased personal views and personal agendas. I wanted to know why that if I put forward such fabrications of truth in my job, I would get the sack but some journalists just have to portray themselves as anti-drugs and they can write whatever they want ... no matter how dangerous it is.

When I hear ramblings about the earth being made in 7 days or Noah’s ark being fact, I naturally question the intelligence of the rambler. Even the catholics recognise that these stories are just symbolic and no one can really argue their validity without having serious questions asked about their reality perception. Faith in the religious context is the opposite to science. The more that something is unable to be proved, the more faith you must have.

faith [noun]

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

-New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition

Faith plays a big part in the world’s drug policies. The UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is completely dictated to by the US who push their faith based, Zero Tolerance (ZT) ideology. So much so that even today’s medical/humanity based, Harm Minimisation is now pushing the boundaries of the UN’s signed accordance with all participating countries. The US's Zero Tolerance policy, preach and strictly enforce a faith based strategy being that moral issues are more important than scientific facts or a person’s well being. This is aptly called the “War on Drugs”. Drug use is considered immoral and discipline is used for those who breach the laws. The health aspect is a side issue which is treated with an odd mixture of morals based policy and medical treatment. Since the “War on Drugs” started 37 years ago, the drug problem is now out of control worldwide and the US led policy has been an abysmal failure. Many countries are now questioning this approach and are turning back to science for answers. They are finding instant success but since it leaves no room for morals based strategies and rejects faith based policies, many are finding it hard to overcome their thinking from the years of propaganda to demonise drugs. The religious, conservatives, politicians and moralists are not so convinced but when your whole argument is faith based, some elaborate tactics are required to keep the masses on side. 

Australia has it’s share of the faithful. Not neccessarily religiously faithful but faithful to the policy of Zero Tolerance. Those who abhor the idea that drug addiction should be treated as a health issue instead of a law and order matter. Australia is a conservative country of late and our politicians are more so than usual. With overwhelming evidence pouring in every year that flies in the face of ZT, the faithful came up with with their own evidence to please the conservatives.

The evidence is already in that such approaches are foolish, and have wider ramifications than are usually considered in "evidence based" trials - especially trials by researchers with a predisposition to distribute heroin rather than minimise its use. 

-Andrew Bolt in response to heroin trials

Poor Andrew. There has never been any scientific research that ”such approaches are foolish, and have wider ramifications than are usually considered in "evidence based" trials”. There have only ever been opinions like his. This attempt to match evidence based policies with their ‘own evidence’ was given a boost when in late 2007, Bronwyn Bishop chaired the government report, “The Winnable War on Drugs”. More about that latter.

The Australian recently had an article by one of the faithful, Miranda Devine. Apart from the usual cherry picking of statistics, Devine tries to use her bizarre logic to criticise Dr. Alex Wodak and his support of Harm Minimisation.

Rather than drug harm-minimisation advocates admitting they are wrong and that their careers up to this point were misguided, they have stepped up their attacks, describing the so-called War on Drugs as a failure and those who disagree as "zealots", "ideologues" and "evangelists". But this is the pot calling the kettle black, for what else do you call people who refuse to change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence but zealots?

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

“Overwhelming evidence”? Devine is wrong. Not only wrong but either deceitful or plain stupid. Any argument can be made by citing biased information and the faithful have made an art of it. Piers Ackerman, Andrew Bolt, Steve Price, Neil Mitchell, Janet Albrechtsen etc often reinforce the view that Harm Minimisation is "a theory in which addicts get free needles, free drugs and shooting galleries". Apart from all working for the same media organisation of truth, News Ltd., these buffoons regularly pump out their simplified and always biased articles. The truth is the furthermost item in their tiny little minds and will create the most fanciful evidence to prove their point. If the government point out that alcohol causes a problem, these people are the quickest to claim their individual rights and for the government to leave social engineering alone. But if the issue is the right of individuals to use any substance apart from the drug, alcohol then they will claim we need to stamp it out, regardless of the cost to human suffering. Then they trot out their ‘evidence’. Well not usually evidence but more opinion than anything.

It is irresponsible for a doctor in his position to play down serious research showing the link between marijuana and schizophrenia, and not just for those who are already psychotic.

What he is doing is no different from the tobacco industry denying the links between smoking and lung cancer.

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

Devine’s article will get the attention she seeks. Mocking one of the world’s leading experts on drug issues gives her the superior mindset that alludes to her information being correct. The gullible faithful readers will lap it up once more and more misinformation has been spread. And isn’t that what we need ... more misinformation.

Medical opinion is moving against him, with the journal The Lancet, on July 28 last year, recanting its 1995 editorial which claimed smoking cannabis was not harmful to health, and citing studies which showed "an increase in risk of psychosis of about 40 per cent in participants who had ever used cannabis".

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

A 40% increase on almost none is still almost none. An increase in risk is not a absolute increase but a ‘risk’ of an increase. And only 40% of that. The fact is, the 1995 report said there was no evidence that cannibis caused psychosis but it is now accepted that there is a risk especially to those who have existing problems. It’s hardly damming statistics that cannabis is dangerous to most of the population.

Another long-term Swedish study of 50,465 Swedish Army conscripts has found those who had tried marijuana by age 18 had 2.4 times the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia in the following 15 years than those who had never used the drug. Heavy users were 6.7 times more likely to be admitted to hospital for schizophrenia.

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

Sweden’s record for fudging figures is well known and it seems so is Miranda Devine. Cherry picking information is another tactic used by the faithful to fight real evidence. The Swedish study had only a minor amount of cannabis users to draw statistics from and they were the heaviest users. It’s this type of blatant misrepresentation that The Australian should call Devine in to explain. Why don’t they? Below is an extract from the same publication that Devine got her ‘evidence’ from.

Cannabis and Psychosis - Fact Sheet

What is the evidence that cannabis use is associated with psychosis? 

It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to this question, however, it should be noted from the outset that much of the evidence for cannabis-associated psychosis has been based on subjects who have used large doses of cannabis and/or used cannabis chronically. 

A great deal of the data has been derived from small studies, some of which have contained inherent flaws, and the findings of some of the larger studies conducted over the last 20 years have varied considerably. 

[...]

A very large study of 50,465 Swedish army conscripts determined their cannabis use at age 18 and followed those individuals for the next 15 years. Recruits who had tried cannabis by age 18 had 2.4 times the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia in the following 15 years than those who had never used cannabis. The risk increased if the conscript used greater quantities of cannabis 

However, of the conscripts who developed schizophrenia: 

• Most had never used cannabis, and 

• Only 7.7 per cent were heavy cannabis users 

Therefore, cannabis use is only one possible factor contributing to an increased risk of developing schizophrenia or other psychosis. This is especially true when one considers that most people who develop a psychosis have never used cannabis. 

-Department of Health and Human Services - Tasmania

One of the direct effects of ZT is driving users underground and along with them go access to real information. ZT harshly criticises anyone who uses drugs at all and those who do are not as willing to admit to their usage. This is a winning point for governments that push ZT as the usage rates will always be down compared to the real numbers. The easiest targets are employees who risk losing their jobs and school students who risk disciplinery consequences from teachers or parents. 

It is exactly the wrong time to legalise cannabis, just as its popularity among young people is diminishing, as shown by the latest Australian Secondary School Students' Use of Alcohol and Drug Survey.

Cannabis use by 12-to-15 year olds in the previous month plummeted from 15 per cent in 1996 to 6 per cent in 2005, with the percentage of 12 to 15 year olds who had ever tried cannabis falling from 28 per cent to 13 per cent. The evidence is that fewer children are even experimenting with cannabis, which is a far more potent drug today than it was when Nimbin's hippies were young.

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

Devine quotes a school survey that shows more clearly than her presumptions that kids are not as willing to disclose their usage when it might bring on condemnation rather than understanding. In 1996, the climate was more realistic of users than 2005 which was in the middle of Howard’s “Tough on Drugs” campaign. Of course kids aren’t going to admit to using drugs if the PM and his government are pumping out multi million dollar campaigns telling them they are losers and will go to jail if caught. So using her logic, since marijuana use is down, it is not a contender for decriminalisation. A national survey by Australia’s national health and welfare statistics and information agency showed that ecstasy use had risen by 500% for 14-19 year olds. and speed use had risen 25% for the same group. Do we decriminalise them?. By the way, what is so important about one age group? The survey also showed that 34% of Australians had tried marijuana and even that is greatly less than the real figure. Shouldn't that be the figure used?

We just finished 11 years of John Howard trying to disassemble our Harm Minimisation polices and introduce ZT under the misleading term “Harm Prevention”. This was the most destructive period of the last 50 years to Australia’s progression towards sensible drug policies. John Howard was the symbol that the faithful could look up to. The problem was that science was producing real evidence that his socially conservative views were flawed. Howard was using Sweden as an example of ZT which he continually cited as a model for Australia. Unfortunately for Howard, Sweden was breaching human rights and fudging figures but after years of falsely boasting it’s success, the faithful had already taken for granted Howard’s spin.

Just as the PM was preparing to vacate the lodge, The Libs produced a report called, The winnable war on drugs : the impact of illicit drug use on families. Chaired by Bronwyn Bishop, it showed the extent to which the government was prepared to take ZT. The report was slammed by nearly every medical and welfare group in Australia and was heavily condemned overseas. The faithful now had an official report to quote from and it seemed like it had especially been written just for them. The problem was, the report wasn’t full of real statistics but a road map to a country under ZT or as they liked to call it, Harm Prevention. Incidentally, the term Zero Tolerance was not the official drug policy of Australia and the term never actually appears in any official report from the government. ‘Harm Prevention’ though was being tossed around, not as a preferred model but arbitrarily to deliberately be confused with Harm Minimisation.

Some of the report’s 31 recommendations:

-Compulsory treatment for teenage addicts

-Restrictions on methadone programs

-Withdrawing funding from drug programs that promote harm minimisation

-Young children be taken away from drug-addicted parents permanently and adopted out

-A review of needle exchange programs

-Closing the safe injection facility

-Random workplace testing for anyone working in public hospitals including doctors and nurses

The powerful and strong recommendations would benefit families of addicts and would help win the war on drugs.

-Bronwyn Bishop

Of course all the medical and welfare groups said the report disregarded existing evidence and research.

This report ... is a road map to disaster which would bring untold harm and misery on young people and the Australian community. It is a disgrace that a committee of our national parliament should display the ignorance that it has done and close its mind to reason and science.

Brian McConnell. President  - Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform

Even though the report was dismissed as political posturing and held no real worth in medical terms, some journalist were ecstatic to have their very own personal source of evidence. The hoo-ha has died down now and the report has gone into the history archives as a new government took over. But it is not the end of it for the faithful. This was the holy grail for them and even the knights of nih weren’t going to rob them of their grail.

For a full demolition of the soft-on-drugs approach, the Bishop report is a goldmine, concluding: "The evidence received … in the course of this inquiry has shown there is a drug industry which pushes harm reduction and minimisation at the expense of harm prevention and treatment [which has as its aim] making an individual drug free."

The inquiry found the push for legalisation of illicit drugs flies in the face of overseas evidence. Sweden, once a harm minimisation pioneer, has learnt from bitter experience, adopting a restrictive drug policy, criminalising illicit drug use, and providing early intervention and treatment, with spectacular results.

Last year a UN review of Swedish drug policy found: "The vision of a drug-free society … has, on occasion, been derided as 'unrealistic', 'not pragmatic' and 'unresponsive' to the needs of drug abusers … The ambitious goal of the drug-free society has been questioned … Nevertheless … the prevalence and incidence rates of drug abuse have fallen in Sweden while they have increased in most other European countries. It is perhaps that ambitious vision that has enabled Sweden to achieve this remarkable result."

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

Divine's rhetoric is summed up when she claims Sweden's ZT policy as having "spectacular results". Sweden has been criticised by the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights for fudging their figures and have been asked to explain their human rights violations re their drug policy. Sweden has been caught out many times falsifying it's so-called success. A recent report on cannabis production levels proves a gross underestimate of 10 times actual production and usage ... that’s ten times more than reported. Drug use in Sweden is NOT dropping at all but is in line with the rest of Europe. The spectacular results include extremely high HIV/AIDS levels, suicide rates of addicts going through the roof, criminal records for minor amount of marijuana and overdose rates above the average.

Sweden despite its policy of ‘a drug free society’ has clearly not been achieved. Quite the reverse; by comparison with the period when this goal was formulated, the available indicators show that drug consumption has increased. This increase in the use and abuse of drugs has taken place in spite of a substantial expansion in control measures.

-Henrik Tham, Professor of Criminology at Stockholm University

What do independent organisations think of Sweden’s ZT? Remember this is the model that Devine claims is the best strategy for Australia. The Senlis Council is an international policy think tank with offices in Kabul, London, Ottawa, Rio de Janeiro, Brussels and Paris. The Senlis Council encompasses foreign policy, security, development and counter-narcotics policies and aims to provide analysis and proposals within these areas.

As you can understand, the Swedish model for drug policy therefore has lead to a great amount of alienation for the drug user. A large number of drug addicts in Sweden have no actual relation with or trust in anyone outside the drug community. Social workers are considered enemies. The police as well of course, but also doctors, teachers and psychologists! 

This might be a little hard to understand, but one of the fundamentals of the Swedish anti-drug policy is propaganda. By this I mean the systematic spread of politically-induced disinformation in order to create a strong and wide support for the extreme measures taken in the struggle for a drug-free society. This is naturally also a question of age and generation. The so called “MTV generation” has a totally different attitude from its predecessors and therefore the basis for the Swedish drug control is diminishing. But among “grownups” the attitude towards drugs is extreme and therefore many teachers, parents, doctors, school nurses, etc. overreact and take drastic measures such as contacting police or social security. In the case of an overdose, addicts sometimes even avoid calling for an ambulance because they are too scared of attracting the social workers’ or the police’s attention. 

-The Senlis Council. London

I could go on but what’s the point? Devine, like the other faithful, Bolt, Ackerman etc. have an agenda and that doesn’t include the truth. Miranda Divine’s article is not only flawed but totally incorrect. The Australian has allowed her to produce a superficial article without any scrutiny. Is this what the media is about? As long as you follow the ideology of the owner, you have carte’ blanche over fabricating stories? I know if most of us, in our employment, produced something that was as flawed as her article, we would be told to pack our bags. What industry allows their employees to lie and pass it off as the truth? Politicians are also guilty of this. John Howard, Chris Pyne, Bronwyn Bishop constantly bent the facts to push their drug strategies. The claim that they stopped the ‘heroin epidemic’ was complete nonsense just as they claimed the so called ‘ice epidemic’ was the number one drug problem. Even the politicians got the sack in the end.

Can someone be that thick to actually believe their own bullshit and publish it to the Australian public? She had to do some research and to wade over the masses of facts to come up with obscure and obviously biased information is unbelievable. But this is not just about bimbos who should be writing for Women’s Weekly. There is a responsibility attached to writing such pieces. She is feeding the masses with more misinformation and this leads to influencing government decisions. Those decisions kill people. That’s right, the damage from the existing drug policies are bad enough but ZT kills even more people. Encouraging such behaviour is morally wrong and if Devine had done her research properly, she would know this. Picking out Dr. Alex Wodak as some sort of left wing loony is disgraceful and shows the contempt of conservative, armchair critics for fellow humans. Bronwyn Bishop did the same, calling him and other Harm Minimisation supporters as ‘elitists’. This was during the enquiry she chaired so it is not surprising that Devine followed suit.

That is a success in anyone's language and it is perverse for Wodak and others in the "helping" professions to deny that success, and pour scorn on the federal "Get Tough on Drugs" approach that underpins it, and which the Rudd Government has shown no signs of dismantling.

-Miranda Devine. The Australian

Does she actually consider the ramifications of a ZT policy? If ‘success’ is measured by people in jail and addicts off the books then ZT will certainly be more of a ‘success’ than she thinks. If people committing suicide and lives being ripped apart with no support, then more success. If pushing science and medicine under the mat and ‘sending the right message’ is a better outcome than facing the reality that people are suffering, even more success. The ability to play with people’s lives for the sake of pushing personal agendas is serious and should be highlighted more. The discrimination they create against addicts should be questioned. More appropriately, maybe they should examine themselves.

UPDATE:

Ross Sharp from Smelly Tongues got in first with his article, The Ballad Of Alex And Miranda.

Diary: BUSTED. One Less Dealer - 10 More Problems

DIARY: A small time drug dealer was busted last week and instead of one less dealer on the streets, we got a string of events that racked up about $100, 000 of costs to the government, one nearly dead and plenty of devastated lives. Is busting small time dealers really worth it and who really benefits from it? ... And are these small time dealers the ‘scourge of society’ as we are constantly being told? The stupidity of our drug policies are becoming common knowledge as more and more people are effected by it. The silly actions stemming from the law & order aspect is contradictory and I wonder how long before (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) L.E.A.P. start a branch in Australia. My dealer got busted the other day. While most might think this is a good outcome, the ramifications were disastrous. My dealer is Vietnamese and a heroin addict. He sells heroin to support the habits of his wife and himself. He has a small but steady cliental who he knows personally from the years of supplying them heroin. There are rarely disputes and he is certainly cautious about what he sells and how much he sells it for. He keeps about 10-15 addicts with a steady supply and we know his gear is fairly much safe compared to just buying it from an unknown. His wife works part time and he shares the caring of their child with his mother as they all live in the one house. The mother works from home and puts in 12-14 hours every day with work and looking after other younger family members. The proceeds from the dealing only supports their habits and the mother kicks in a few hundred dollars each month to top up the cash needed to score. They have a finely balanced lifestyle which is hand to mouth but she manages to educate her children and keep her family in a modest but loving family. So one morning, 7 police officers smash down his door (a bungalow at the side of the main house) and raid him. He just tells them where the drugs are but not satisfied, they rip his whole room up. As he is thrown up against the wall, he tries to alert them there is a child sleeping in the bed but he is smashed in the face by a female police officer. As he is panicking and yelling to stop, he is repeatedly smashed in the face now by 2 officers. Too late, 4-5 heavy boxes have been thrown on his young daughter who is now dazed and crying. Meanwhile a few officers are in the main house where they have demanded his mother hand over all her “drug money”. She can’t speak English so they take from her purse $70 and leave. The dealer is escorted to the police station and charged with supply of a narcotic (6 x .4 gram deals). There is no mention of the $70 from his mother or the $660 they took from his pocket. Incidentally, for the last 5 years since he previously got busted, whenever his mother is spotted driving around by a certain few police officers, they pull her over and take all her money. She can’t speak English and after copping a slap across the face when she first protested, she just gives them what they want. I actually wrote an official complaint on their behalf but never received any confirmation of my complaint. I had also emailed the police twice about his mother and still, no response. What happens when a supplier of a commodity is removed from the scene for a period of time? Buyers go elsewhere ... they don’t magically disappear. One regular client went to the city in desperation and found a dealer in 15 minutes. He paid $200 ($60 more than usual), went home and overdosed. He had been given some filler chemical and it poisoned him. He is still in hospital and with no income, his family is suffering greatly. He owns a gardening business and employs a helper who has also lost his income. A few of us have started to do his regular jobs until he is well enough to get back to work. The dealer organised it out of guilt. So what was the outcome of busting this heroin dealer? One person nearly dead, his family in disarray with financial problems, his business losing regular clients daily, his employee without a job. Another two people needing money desperately to treat their addiction, preparing to go to jail for about a year or two, having to build up enough money to start over again. A traumatised child who had several heavy boxes lobbed on top of her whilst asleep, having to live without her father when he goes to jail. A family missing an adult who does most of the running around like shopping, taking his wife to work, taking kids to and from school etc., a family missing much needed money that went to corrupt cops. A busted door. 10-15 addicts doomed to buy their drugs from unknown sources. Oh and one more statistic for the police to say they are being “tough on drugs”. Stopping this small dealer, didn’t stop the flow of drugs one iota. It had no positive effect on society but cost us lots of money ... jail for the dealer for about 1-2 years, 7 police officers, hospital for overdose, employee on the dole, his wife on the dole and more. The dealer had a choice to sell drugs to addicts who were going to buy them anyway, steal cars, burgle houses or rob people, or get a job paying over $100K per year. he chose the most practical without having to resort to crime that would hurt people. That’s his nature. He refuses to take stolen property for heroin and he frowns upon addicts who rob people and usually doesn’t have them as clients. He even arranged to help the guy who overdosed. He is not a bad person but according to our drug policy and many Australians, he is the scum of the earth. The whole crazy situation could have been avoided if Australia had prescription heroin. None of this would have happened and the dealer and family along with the overdose victim would not have been in such a precarious position. As we have seen, policing does nothing but cost society a lot of money and make criminals out of people with addictions. It’s almost like a story line from a science fiction novel. I can imagine 20 years from now when we look back to the “dark old days” and how for 50 years we were so terrified of addiction that we tried to rub it out, killing over a million people in the process. I wonder why other countries offer prescription heroin with great success but we don’t. Will it change? Will incidents like the above keep happening? and if so, for how long?

Diary: Some Clarification

DIARY: I received a comment from a cyber friend today and decided to publish this article as a few people have asked similar questions or voiced their concern about myself ‘managing’ my addiction. 

Terry, this is a general comment about your site more so than about this topic as such. Specifically about the information in your sidebar actually. Also I say this as someone who has grappled with a number of addictions so, please understand my comments are not intended to be judgemental. Mate, it seems to me, that your experience is possibly somewhat atypical, your claim (and I have no reason to believe you are being dishonest) to be living a more or less "normal" (don't like the word myself, conventional might be a better substitute)life but-for-being-a-heroin-addict seems to me to be a kind of attempt to normalise your addiction. I know I kept drinking and using drugs for many years on the illusion of managability, I believed my addiction was manageable, so I kept using. I had to -like it says in the first step- admit that i was powerless and that my life had become unmanageable. 

While you continue on with the belief that your life is manageable while you continue to use, you will relapse. Obviously this isn't something I usually discuss in a public forum so you can email me if you'd like to respond, obviously you can choose to ignore or take on board what I have to say, it's entirely up to you.

For the record I have been street drug and alcohol free for five years now and I was a daily, round-the-clock abuser of a number of substances. There was a time in my life when I couldn't even imagine going a day without some kind of mind altering chemical.

First of all, I am actually a recovering addict. I am on what’s called, substitution treatment which is the most common form of treatment for heroin addiction. Substitution treatment usually involves methadone or buprenorphine which keeps the patient “stable” by maintaining their addiction with something else apart from street heroin. These substitution drugs are just as addictive as heroin but each dose is much longer lasting and doesn’t get the patient high. The idea behind it is to give the patient time to stabilise their life without worrying about finding money or drugs everyday. Once on methadone, most patients can live a fairly normal life with work and other normal functions of life. After being stable for a period, the patient can then be weaned off methadone slowly until they are free of opiates. 

Due to a pain condition and the problems of depression and some health issues from methadone, I have been switched over to slow release oral morphine (SROM) which works on basically the same principal as methadone. Morphine is not allowed to be prescribed solely for addiction in Australia but is an option for addiction treatment in some other countries. 

Although substitution treatment can get you physically clean from heroin, often the physiological cravings can lead the patient back to heroin. To succeed with substitution treatment, counselling is recommended and it increases the chances of staying clean. Many methadone patients relapse and usually it takes a few attempts. 

A major issue is that often people start on heroin because of a personal problem, particularly deep rooted physiological trauma or mental health issues like depression. When these people get clean, their problem might still persists and the chances of relapsing are high. 

As you can see, addiction is very complex and addicts are usually misrepresented by the MSM and the ignorant as just selfish, hopeless junkies. For the majority, this isn’t true and until addiction is treated entirely as a health instead of a legal issue, the politicians and MSM will continue to use the personal health issues of addicts as publicity fodder. Some other people like myself have major problems kicking opiates and spend years or even decades on methadone. For some, life on methadone is fine and recent research is showing that it might be an appropriate strategy to keep some patients on methadone indefinitely. 

The constant push to lower your dose for the goal of becoming clean is now being questioned as appropriate for everyone. As more is being discovered, alternative treatments for long term patients are being trialled overseas like prescription heroin. 

Addiction was once treated with the drug that addicts were addicted to. Just as methadone is currently used to stabilise then reduce, heroin, cocaine and morphine were once prescribed using the same model of reducing your dose until clean.

Ironically, the real problems of heroin and cocaine started when the US declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 and forced the UN to enforce it worldwide. The level of drug related crime and the mortality rates were only a fraction of what they are today. Prior to the push from the US/UN to enforce their “War on Drugs” policies, the US were one of only a few countries with major drug problems because they outlawed prescribing these drugs for addiction half a century before anyone else. 

As some countries are reverting back to prescribing heroin, their heroin related problems are decreasing steadily whilst drug related crime and major societal problems continue to infest countries like Australia and the US. Heroin prescription is now an option for long term addicts in Canada, England, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Spain. It has been extremely successful and many more countries are looking into it.

I used to use heroin up to 500-600 times a year or about twice a day. On methadone I got that down to zero for a while but I kept relapsing. This went on for several years until my back pain got worse, the depression became unbearable and my body was at it’s limits from the methadone. 

My doctor arranged for me to see a pharmacotherapist who arranged with the health department for me to switch to SROM and anti depressants. That treated my back pain, my addiction and my depression (to an extent). I wasn’t going to get off opiates any time soon and my doctor agreed that prescription heroin was suited to my situation if available. I now use heroin 12 times a year or once a month. I don’t crave heroin like I once did but use this method as a safety measure. It’s still very easy to fall into using but once a month is enough for me. If I start to stray, I can reminded myself that my time to use is coming up. It seems to work and keep away from heroin for 344 days a year. If I was in another country, I would be on prescription heroin and the difference is it is not an option in Australia. 

For those who think I am deluding myself as all good junkies do, the use of heroin as a treatment is approved by many doctors but cannot not officially be endorsed. To summarise, my treatment plan is not focussed on being free of opiates. I would love to be clean but the current thinking is that long term addicts have different needs to most heroin addicts. I have the choice to deal with my situation with street heroin or via the medical route ... I have chosen the official medical route. My treatment is long term addiction management, not the “stabilise, then reduce” treatment like most methadone patients. I have no physical need to use heroin because of the morphine (or methadone) but I still have physiological cravings. This is treated via 12 monthly doses of heroin. BTW, my situation is fully implemented and monitored by 3 medical professionals. I should also mention that you can safely take opiates all your life. they are basically non toxic and do no harm physically. Other drugs like amphetamines are a different matter. You can never manage a life of speed or alcohol for too long because of the havoc it causes on your body and brain. 

Some Won’t (Don’t Want To) Get It. 

Tens of thousands were once treated with heroin or morphine with very little problems but that changed when the US/UN enforced their abstinence or nothing approach. Abstinence should always be the first and preferred method but if that doesn’t work, then there should be several options after that like substitution treatment. The problem is that after nearly 40 years of drug hysteria and propaganda from the MSM, politicians, moralists, conservatives and the religious right, there is massive ignorance in the public arena and total abstinence is seen as the only option. 

My whole blog is based on trying to dispel the myths and personal views that dictate how we, as a society treat the drug problem. Some will never change their minds though, choosing to ignore science and medical facts and sticking to their ignorant views. Even when presented with my blog, some choose to skip over the facts and the actual content then construe their own biased views or judgements about myself.

As an unrepentant Junkie Wright, it really is just a matter of time before he cops a shot of some bad smack or before he catches a blood borne disease and goes to the biggest trip of all. I am amazed how the likes of Everett take at face value all of Wrights protestations that he has his habit “under control”. When it is very clear that Wright is in fact a most obedient slave of the poppy and that any suggestions that this addict can control his master, like those made by Wright in his blog, actually border on the delusional as any number of former addicts will testify. In the end the only ways to stay clean are to totally abstain which Wright refuses to even consider. Indeed Wright’s ability to “cope” is predicated upon some rather fragile constructs that are only ever one or two setbacks from irrevocably collapsing in a heap Typical of the left Everett is willing to make any concession to someone who her perceives as a noble “victim” he does it in relation to our Indigenous Australians and he does it with Wright. Personally I don’t care about the fact that Wright is a Junkie it is his obnoxious and belligerent comments directed at me that I object too and I refuse to treat him with kid gloves because he loves the needle more than anything else in the world.

-Iain Hall; Moralist and conservative blogger.

The above comment was made by infamous conservative want-to-be weirdo, Iain Hall. Much of his criticisms are aimed at me personally but you get the feel of the overall ignorance that he displays. 

His views reflect the usual media driven images of desperate junkies shooting up anything and not caring about sharing needles. 

The idea that any form of treatment except the “abstinence only” method is doomed to fail is typical of conservative values and ignorance. Remember that it was the US and their conservative views that interrupted over a century of treatment with their own “War on Drugs” approach that has given us the massive drug problems we have today. 

The conviction that Hall’s conservative opinions are facts are shown with his claim, “as any number of former addicts will testify”. What former addicts? We just have to take his word for it. Although Hall should never be taken seriously, his views are reflective of those who can’t comprehend that drug addiction is complex. The black and white world of some right wing conservatives will always hinder their ability to see past drug addiction as a law and order issue. Countries that have prescription heroin or safe injecting rooms are always under threat of conservative politicians regardless of the success. There is quite a lot of research now showing the huge benefits from what would have been called radical only ten years ago. You can only ignore facts for so long and the fallacious thinking like that of Hall is luckily becoming less influential on how we approach drug addiction.