Drug Madness Costs Decades of Research

For the last 100 years, politics, moral panic and special interest groups have shaped the world’s drug policies often leaving facts and science behind in the race for a drug free world. Just last week, Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the UK was sacked after he claimed that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. Professor Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol has long been a critic of the UK drug scheduling list, often saying that drug policy is not based on science or research but political posturing. The current UK government is the countries first administration in power to ignore a report from the AMCD and implement contradicting recommendations. The science community is in an uproar that an independent scientific committee can have their chief scientist sacked for simply telling the truth that just happens to conflict with the government’s political position. Professor Nutt and his colleagues had previously initiated several government enquiries into drug policy but each one has been shut down by members of the government when it threatened their political position. The failure to class drugs appropriately might seem illogical or just a political game by dopey politicians but the real world carnage for users is life changing. With courts able to dish out some serious prison time, addicts, users and dealers face daily the possibility of spending decades behind bars. The effects are usually devastating on the families and friends involved.

Led by the US, the UN has constantly pushed all member countries to support and ratify treaties with more restrictive and harsher drug policies. This led to various treaties for different regions but they were eventually wrapped into The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs with The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances following a decade later. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances later expanded the two existing treaties to better tackle global organised crime and place more pressure on consumer countries to arrest drug users and addicts instead of just the manufacturers, suppliers and dealers. Yes, you read that right ... a concerted effort to arrest more users and addicts.

... each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.
-The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

The reliance on extreme and harsh punitive measures to manage drug policies has created a massive artificial, illegal industry worth $400 billion dollars a year. It also created a world living in fear. It started in the early 1900s when authorities arrested doctors who prescribed opiates for addiction and continued to the current day restrictions on medical research involving illicit drugs. Drugs that held great promise for various ailments were often forced unnecessarily onto the most dangerous list when they became popular for recreational use by the public. Doctors are hesitant to prescribe strong painkillers for fear of being targeted by the over zealous authorities. Substitution treatment for heroin addicts is limited to a few basic opioids as heroin assisted treatment (HAT) was deemed to breach UN drug treaties. Even medical marijuana has been ignored by most countries as decades of propaganda has tarnished it’s image as a dangerous drug.

Cannabis
Strangely enough, cannabis would have never been banned had the US congress accepted the advice of the American Medical Association(AMA) and not the racist views of Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger hated Mexicans (who were the main users then) and had a lot of personal interest in banning marijuana. Incidentally, Anslinger had once claimed it’s use was harmless. Dr. William Woodward from the AMA also appeared in congress that day and contradicted every reason put forward by Anslinger for banning cannabis. But the chairman chose to read articles from the media as proof that cannabis was as dangerous as Anslinger claimed. Ironically, the beat-up in the media was the main issue raised by the AMA that said the US media was not basing their articles on any evidence whatsoever and none of their claims have ever been scrutinised by research. It’s worth noting that the owner of the newspapers that printed these stories was William Randolf Hearst who had huge financial interests in closing down the hemp industry. He was also a well known racist who hated Mexicans as much as Anslinger. After ignoring any science put forward by the AMA, the bill was passed. When the bill went to the floor of the house to be approved another incredible incident helped seal the fate of cannabis and hemp.

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth(Woodward) came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

-Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant

Although 15 states in the US now support medical marijuana which treats millions of patients, it is still listed as a schedule I drug.

Schedule I Drug:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

As you can see, points B and C simply do not apply to cannabis. This is an example of how outdated and obsolete that drug scheduling is in it’s current form. Since drug laws and punishment are usually based on scheduling a huge array of issues are distorted including crime, sentencing and research.

Although cannabis is classed as having “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” , there are many claims about it being a miracle treatment for all sorts of conditions, including cancer. From Ricky Simpson to Harvard University, claims of cannabis fighting cancer cells or even being a cure have been circulating since the 1960s. According to the BBC in their health section, cannabis helps reduce the side effects of chemotherapy by allowing patients to regain their appetite quickly and reduce nausea. For these reasons, it is also used for AIDS patients with Wasting Disease. Cannabis also helps treat multiple sclerosis, menstrual cramps, depression, mood disorders, glaucoma, asthma, strokes, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, alcoholism and insomnia. However, according to the BBC there are side effects and the “opponents of the use of cannabis” point out - it damages the ability to concentrate. If these “opponents of the use of cannabis” get their way, all the people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis etc. can concentrate all the better on dying a slow, painful death.




Apart from marijuana, other drugs listed in the US as schedule I are heroin, mescaline, MDMA(ecstasy), GHB, LSD and psilocybin(magic mushrooms). You might notice that some of these drugs don’t fit the criteria very well especially point B that says, The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. MDMA, LSD and psilocybin were showing great potential when used during the 1960s and 1970s for various psychiatric studies and physiological therapy. But like all drugs that become popular for recreational use, they were quickly banned in a bid to protect the public from harming themselves. In their haste though, the science community were also mostly denied access to these drugs regardless of their potential medical use.

Prof Roland Griffiths at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore Maryland recently published a study of 36 healthy volunteers who were given psilocybin and then observed in the lab. The participants' ages ranged from 24 to 64 and none had taken hallucinogens before. When the group were interviewed again 14 months later 58% said they rated the experience as being among the five most personally meaningful of their lives, 67% said it was in their top five spiritual experiences, and 64% said it had increased their well-being or life satisfaction.
-The Guardian: Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses

Prior to the popularity of these new hallucinogenic drugs for recreational use, they were considered to be cutting edge science. They helped scientists better understand the mind and how the brain works including the treatment of several conditions like alcoholism. The potential was exciting for the many scientists who were exposed to a whole new field and were able to treat patients that had not responded to previous treatments. But the rising use of these drugs for pleasure, especially LSD, was just too much for a conservative America and soon stories of people jumping out windows and crossing busy roads while “tripping” became urban myths. Hippies with long hair and other anti-establishment behaviour became the image embedded in the public’s mind when LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs were mentioned. Eventually the media and the government started questioning the safety of using these drugs for research with exaggerated stories of psychosis and other mental health problems. The truth is that these drugs are basically non toxic, non addictive and rarely have long term effects unless there is a pre-existing mental illness. All the success and potential didn’t matter though. They were seen as dangerous to society, immoral and a symbol of rebellious, anti-American youth.


MDMA
The story of how MDMA(ecstasy) became a schedule I drug is just one of the amazing examples of how obscure drug scheduling still is.

Most of the information available regarding street use of MDMA(in the 80s) is based on anecdotal accounts given to the media, therapists, and substance abuse professionals...
-Erowid (1987)

Without any qualified evidence, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defied medical research and used their emergency scheduling powers to temporarily make MDMA a Schedule I drug. Several medical professionals including pharmacology experts argued that a Schedule I status would severely hinder their research into MDMA's therapeutic potential. The science community appealed the emergency classification before the administrative law judge, Francis Young who recommended that MDMA be classed as a Schedule III drug. The DEA rejected the judge’s recommendation and MDMA was made a Schedule I drug permanently. Obviously the medical experts, researchers and scientists were wrong. God damn, even the judge was wrong.


MDMA - Another Case of Crack/Cocaine Disparity?
In response to a mandate from the US Congress and after weighing the views of the Justice Department, the US Sentencing Commission in 2001 increased the penalties for MDMA offences by nearly 3000%. This made the penalty for possessing 4 ecstasy pills the equivalent of having 1 kilogram of cannabis or 1 gram of heroin.

The change makes ecstasy five times more serious to possess or sell than heroin on a per-dose basis [...] This is a wholly political act, not one based on scientific evidence
-Edward Mallett - President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Opposing the new laws and armed with scientific evidence that MDMA was nowhere near the danger levels of heroin to both society and the user, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Federation of American Scientists called for a relaxing of the laws involving MDMA distribution, possession and use. They were ignored of course in what appears to be the new crack/cocaine disparity fiasco from the 80s.

The crack/cocaine disparity laws were introduced in 1986 by Ronald Reagan in response to the crack epidemic as exaggerated claims of “crack babies” and “instant addiction” hit the media. A mandatory five-year sentence was dished out to anyone caught with 5 grams or more of cocaine which meant crack users were jailed for a drug that was much heavier than it’s powder form. Incidentally, most crack users were African American and later Hispanics. The new laws copped plenty of criticism over the years for creating severe racial disparities in the prison system but for cocaine using middle America, it wasn’t their problem.

The mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread.
-TIME. August 2009

I mentioned the crack/cocaine disparity as it is a clear example of how misguided drug laws can reap so much damage especially for minorities. What’s really interesting though is that the 2001 push for ecstasy offences to be increased so heavily coincide with a White House report showing an increase in use by minorities.

The availability of ecstasy increased dramatically and more blacks and Hispanics are using the drug
-White House Drug Policy Report

And then the crunch.

We never again want another 'crack epidemic' to blindside this nation
-Edward H. Jurith - Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Is this a coincidence? A new drug policy that penalises by weight instead of dosage when the heaviest drug is being used increasingly by Blacks and Hispanics? It may sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory but since there was so much scientific evidence against these laws and with the history of US drug laws, I can’t help but wonder.

MDMA is now officially classed as having no medical value and too risky for research. How can such a potentially useful drug with a small but significant history of success suddenly be banned and placed onto the US schedule I list? How can they then increase penalties disproportionally to other drugs purely for political reasons? Is research using MDMA dead in the US?

Australia
The mere mention of street drugs sends shivers down the spine of most politicians. Unless they play the “Tough on Drugs” game, they risk the chance of being singled out as “Soft on Drugs” by the many anti-drug nutters in politics. Even those who aren’t zealots will still see it as an opportunity to attack their opposition and score political points. The sad part isn’t that it’s confined to just recreational drug use but also when these drugs are associated with medical procedures that they were originally developed for. Nothing highlights this more than when SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson bucketed Democrat, Sandra Kanck when she suggested a study into MDMA as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome(PTSS). In a public dressing down, Atkinson said the Government would "not be supporting Sandra Kanck's latest rave" and "Vietnam Veterans are not laboratory mice for a left-wing social experiment". A year later the study was taken up by the Canadian government.

How can we forget John Howard who in August 1997, vetoed the proposed ACT heroin trial. Although the trial had support from the AMA, the medical community, both sides of parliament and most states, Howard claimed it 'sent the wrong message' and refused to sign off on the proposal wasting 6 years of careful scientific research. Importing heroin is controlled by the federal government and without their approval, the states could not source the drug from overseas. Prior to the proposed ACT heroin trials, Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett had commissioned Prof. David Pennington to report on Victoria’s drug laws. He also favoured a trial of prescription heroin and his report caught the attention of the US government. US president, Bill Clinton sent a few of his heavies to investigate the rumblings of a proposed heroin trial and Prof. Pennington was swiftly summoned to a meeting. The US and their staunch Zero Tolerance policy has dominated the UN drug offices since it’s inception. Any country that dared upset their moralist and anti-drug views were called into line very quickly often with threats. Unlike Switzerland that could run their own heroin trials without fear of US intervention, Australia had a lot under the control of the US/UN particularly, the Tasmanian poppy industry. The US goon squad made it clear that the UN run International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) managed Tasmania’s poppy production levels and a heroin trial was not welcomed by the US/UN. Although the proposed heroin trial was classed as “scientific research”, drug free rhetoric was more important to the US/UN and trumps any namby pamby scientific argument. It seems that the US not only prohibited drug research internally but in any country where they can extend their influence.

It is always sad when science is stymied by ideology, religion or ignorance. The US Bush administration and the Australian Howard government are 2 classic examples of this. During the Bush years, science was pushed aside for the religious convictions of the president and the religious right who supported him. In Australia around the same time, Bush crony, John Howard threatened non-government organisations(NGOs) and other groups who relied on government funding to submit all media releases before publishing them. It was the darkest period in Australia’s scientific history with a great number of important research studies being disregarded by our own government. Instead we were exposed to absolute tripe like The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs” and government funded evangelistic groups like Drug Free Australia(DFA). The hardest hit were the NGOs who worked in welfare and of course were supporters of Harm Minimisation. Howard hated Harm Minimisation and even denied it was Australia’s official drug policy. A change of government was welcomed by the scientific community but they were soon faced with political reality when Kevin Rudd requested all media statements from government research groups be cleared with the Prime Minister’s office.

Hope?
Fortunately, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs has a clause that allows some programs to be classed as “scientific research”. Although it doesn’t guarantee acceptance by the UN it is often used by countries that want to keep within UN guidelines and aren’t in the position of being threaten with a US embargo like Australia was with the Tasmanian poppy industry. The Netherlands heroin assisted treatment (HAT) program is still classified as “scientific research” and has to be renewed every few years. Also, the Dutch “coffee shops” that sell cannabis are still technically illegal which keeps them inside the UN guidelines but they choose to de-prioritise the laws under a “gedoogbeleid” or tolerance policy. Australia has the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) which conflicts with UN policy but since it’s classed as a “scientific trial” and the US hasn’t tried to intervene, it’s free to operate but still needs to be re-established every 4 years.

During the Bush years, Mexican president, Vincente Fox introduced a bill that would decriminalise small amounts of all drug. The bill was passed in the Mexican congress but after intense pressure from the US, president Fox vetoed his own bill. An almost identical bill was passed this year under different US and Mexican presidents. Is this a sign of change? Has the anti-drug madness of US presidents like Reagan, Clinton and Bush(Snr. & Jr.) been confined to the history books to haunt them forever? Is the UN’s lack of criticism for the new drug laws in Mexico and Portugal suggesting a rethink of drug policies? Is this a new era for science?

We have lost nearly 40 years of research and potential medical breakthroughs because of the elected twats we put in power, Those who selfishly put their own agenda ahead of the millions who may have benefited by research into illicit drugs. From the US and their objection to researching these drugs down to state governments that oppose medical clinics as being immoral ... the winners are organised crime like drug cartels and some may argue the government who are technically “organised criminals”. The losers are clearly us, the public.

Scientists Study Possible Health Benefits Of LSD And Ecstacy
The Guardian
By Denis Campbell - Health Correspondent
October 2009

 A growing number of people are taking LSD and other psychedelic drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy to help them cope with a variety of conditions including anorexia nervosa, cluster headaches and chronic anxiety attacks.

The emergence of a community that passes the drugs between users on the basis of friendship, support and need – with money rarely involved – comes amid a resurgence of research into the possible therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. This is leading to a growing optimism among those using the drugs that soon they may be able to obtain medicines based on psychedelics from their doctor, rather than risk jail for taking illicit drugs.

Among those in Britain already using the drugs and hoping for a change in the way they are viewed is Anna Jones (not her real name), a 35-year-old university lecturer, who takes LSD once or twice a year. She fears that without an occasional dose she will go back to the drinking problem she left behind 14 years ago with the help of the banned drug.

LSD, the drug synonymous with the 1960s counter-culture, changed her life, she says. "For me it was the catalyst to give up destructive behaviour – heavy drinking and smoking. As a student I used to drink two or three bottles of wine, two or three days a week, because I didn't have many friends and didn't feel comfortable in my own skin.

"Then I took a hit of LSD one day and didn't feel alone any more. It helped me to see myself differently, increase my self-confidence, lose my desire to drink or smoke and just feel at one with the world. I haven't touched alcohol or cigarettes since that day in 1995 and am much happier than before."

Many others are using the drugs to deal with chronic anxiety attacks brought on by terminal illness such as cancer.

Research was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s into psychedelics. In some places they were even used as a treatment for anxiety, depression and addiction. But a backlash against LSD – owing to concerns that the powerful hallucinogen was becoming widespread as a recreational drug, and fear that excessive use could trigger mental health conditions such as schizophrenia – led to prohibition of research in the 1970s.

Under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act it is classified as a Class A, schedule 1 substance – which means not only is LSD considered highly dangerous, but it is deemed to have no medical research value.

Now, though, distinguished academics and highly respected institutions are looking again at whether LSD and other psychedelics might help patients. Psychiatrist Dr John Halpern, of Harvard medical school in the US, found that almost all of 53 people with cluster headaches who illegally took LSD or psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, obtained relief from the searing pain. He and an international team have also begun investigating whether 2-Bromo-LSD, a non-psychedelic version of LSD known as BOL, can help ease the same condition.

Studies into how the drug may be helping such people are also being carried out in the UK. Amanda Feilding is the director of the Oxford-based Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust that investigates consciousness, its altered states and the effects of psychedelics and meditation. She is a key figure in the revival of scientific interest in psychedelics and expresses her excitement about the initial findings of two overseas studies with which her foundation is heavily involved.

"One, at the University of California in Berkeley, was the first research into LSD to get approval from regulators and ethics bodies since the 1970s," she said. Those in the study are the first to be allowed to take LSD legally in decades as part of research into whether it aids creativity. "LSD is a potentially very valuable substance for human health and happiness."

The other is a Swiss trial in which the drug is give alongside psychotherapy to people who have a terminal condition to help them cope with the profound anxiety brought on by impending death. "If you handle LSD with care, it isn't any more dangerous than other therapies," said Dr Peter Gasser, the psychiatrist leading the trial.

At Johns Hopkins University in Washington, another trial is examining whether psilocybin can aid psychotherapy for those with chronic substance addiction who have not been helped by more conventional treatment.

Professor Colin Blakemore, a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the class-A status of psychedelics such as LSD should not stop them being explored as potential therapies. "No drug is completely safe, and that includes medical drugs as well as illegal substances," he said. "But we have well-developed and universally respected methods of assessing the balance of benefit and harm for new medicines.

"If there are claims of benefits from substances that are not regulated medicines – even including illegal drugs – it is important that they should be tested as thoroughly for efficacy and safety as any new conventional drug."

Past reputations may make it hard to get approval for psychedelic medicines, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

"The known adverse effect profiles of psychedelic drugs would have to be considered very carefully in the risk/benefit analysis before the drugs may be approved for medicinal use," said a spokeswoman. "These products, if approved, are likely to be classified as a prescription-only medicine and also likely to remain on the dangerous drug list, which means that their supply would be strictly controlled."

Related Articles:

•Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses - The Guardian
•Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant
•Breakthrough Discovered in Medical Marijuana Cancer Treatment - Salem News
•MDMA Scheduling Hearing
•Will Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Reform Help Current Cons? - TIME
•Why the US won't let Australia reform its drug laws - SMH

CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media

I’ve read some really silly articles about drugs lately but this cracker from Jackie Sinnerton in the Courier Mail needs your attention. Not for the profound message it attempts to sell you but to brighten up your day. Maybe I’m just a sucker for accidental self parody from self righteous or ignorant twats but reading this type of article really makes my day ... and makes me laugh. It’s like watching The Office(UK) where you get pleasure from cringing at some idiot trying to be something they’re not. Which reminds me, do you remember the Fiona Connolly article in the The Daily Telegraph last year titled Cokehead Should be Ashamed? If you do then you may be forgiven if you think the authors are sisters.

Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia
Courier Mail
By Jackie Sinnerton
October 2009


A FOUR-wheel-drive makes its way to the front door of a well-loved suburban home.

It's a two-income, two-child abode. Worth a million, but heavily mortgaged. This is not rock star territory.

The mother of the house follows her fortnightly routine. She checks that the kids are distracted and pops outside, takes the envelope off the driver and exchanges pleasantries.

Nothing cloak and dagger.

No names or money are exchanged.

Apparently her husband takes care of the financial business with a guy in the city – $350 she believes. They spend $700 a month.

The transaction is completed.

It is as straight forward as someone delivering the milk.

The lady of the house then rushes upstairs and secretes the envelope in her bottom drawer – away from tiny hands.

No need to check the contents – it is always the same. A gram of cocaine folded in foil paper and tucked into a plastic bag.

Back to the kitchen to prepare school lunches. There will be no mention of the delivery until Saturday night when the guests arrive.

Looking past the manicured hedges, French doors and shop-buffed people-movers in suburban driveways unearths a shocking reality.

Sarah does not use cocaine. But her story, like a script from a bad episode of Desperate Housewives, paints a surreal picture of what family life in the 'burbs can be like when the lights in the children's rooms go out.

Sarah reluctantly discloses the happenings of the night out when she stumbled upon the drug culture lurking in the shadows of suburban streets.

Sarah's family was invited to a social evening at a friend's home on the outskirts of the city.

"My husband and I were invited to a party at a friend of a friend's," she recalls. "They live in a really nice house – they are both professional people with kids and are heavily involved in the kids school functions and sport.

"Kids were invited to the party. It all seemed quite harmless to begin with but as the evening wore on I certainly got my eyes opened.

"Early on it was just like any other family barbecue: Kids were running around everywhere and parents were enjoying a chat and a drink.

"As it got later, there seemed to be a huge urgency to get the kids settled down in makeshift beds upstairs.

"Only adults remained downstairs, and they just continued to enjoy the evening with another drink.

"Then at the top of the stairs the signal came from one of the dads. It was the all-clear. All the kids, including mine, were asleep.

"I remember looking around a little bemused, and that is when a few of the parents brought out little plastic packages of cocaine from their pockets.

"I was blown away. I may have enjoyed a joint in my youth, but hardcore drugs amongst friends of friends in a suburban house! I admit, I was very intrigued.

"I took it all in. Agreements had been made between some of the couples. 'Tonight it is your turn'. It's a bit like who is going to drive home. One parent has to remain sensible in case of child emergency."

A growing number of Australian suburban homes play out similar scenarios as parents dabble in narcotics, and Queensland's suburban sprawls are not immune.

Most of the state's cocaine use takes place in the southeast corner – but it is the affluent areas rather than the lower socio-economic areas so often tainted by drug use that have been pin-pointed as a problem.

"The people at this barbecue were mostly professional, well respected members of the community who support their children's school building funds, hold down challenging jobs, and make sure their kids eat their greens and don't talk to strangers," Sarah continues.

"Thankfully the set-up was fairly controlled, and a person was allocated to watch the kids at all times.

"But my heart was racing, I could only think about what would happen if the police came. Would I be in trouble too? I decided I would grab my kids and get out, but I didn't want to look panicked, so I chatted and smiled as I made my way through the crowd.

"During that time, as I located my husband, I watched some people disappear into the downstairs toilet. But more blatantly, a couple of the men just lined up their powder on the dining room table, using a credit card to straighten the edges.

"Then they rolled up paper money, and got into it.

"It crossed my mind how maxed out that credit card must be.

"I am not a prude by any means, and have had my fair share of alcoholic drinks over the years, but by all accounts listening to the others at the party I am obviously somewhat behind the times."

For some, having a few drinks doesn't cut it anymore. Drug-fuelled Saturday nights are the way to go.

"I felt like a scared child when offered the drug," Sarah said.

"I politely declined.

"Not everyone used drugs that night. In fact, maybe less than one-third of those at the party, but most people seemed unperturbed by the behaviour."

Sarah says some of the women sensed her horror at what was unfolding before her, and tried to talk down the implications of the activity.

"Apparently that the best thing about taking the drug was that you feel great about yourself, it increases self-confidence and it is easier to let yourself go," she said.

"Certainly the party picked up quite dramatically and before leaving I saw another person go back for more.

"I remembered hearing once that cocaine can give you seizures and I couldn't help but worry that someone was going to have to call for an ambulance.

"Imagine the scandal if all these very respected citizens ended up in the police station for doing hard core drugs? What about the poor kids then?

"No one seemed too concerned about the down sides. All I heard was it makes you feel energised, powerful and enhances the libido – it works wonders for the love life.

"I did hear the words 'recreational' and 'social' used quite a lot that night. Whether to convince me or themselves, those who chose to snort were very adamant 'I hardly ever do it, it's just for fun'."

But according to the experts there is no such thing as recreational drug taking.

There is nothing but bad news at the end of the white dust track.

Coke, crack, dust, nose candy, white lady – whatever you want to call it – cocaine kills people.

It's not called "the Addicter" or "Great Deceiver" for no reason.

When absorbed into the blood stream, it is a very potent drug.

A small amount – one to three milligrams – produces extreme stimulating effects on the brain by releasing a chemical, norepinephrine, from the nerve endings.

It elevates the mood and helps boost energy levels and mental activity.

It helps you feel invincible and wipes out fatigue.

But what goes up must come down.

This state of euphoria can be followed within 30 to 60 minutes by a "let-down feeling" of depression and dullness.

According to Drug Arm counsellor Richard Norman, cocaine is often included in cocktails of drugs and is not always the primary drug used.

It is often mixed with other drugs and alcohol – adding to the toxic mix.

"It is ridiculous to think that you can use cocaine recreationally," he said.

"It depends on the person's build, but it doesn't take long before people start to yearn for that euphoric feeling more often.

"The middle-class demographic is a difficult one to understand, because they are not likely to come to public rehabilitation or counselling centres.

"I would imagine they would go to their GPs or private counsellors – there is a lot at stake. It's illegal as well as highly dangerous."

While the drug is no longer just reserved for millionaires, there can be a huge financial impact on the user if they become dependent on cocaine.

The 2007 National Drug Strategy's Household Survey showed cocaine consumption was at its highest level since 1993.

It's a risky way to get through domestic stresses.

It is possible to build up a resistance to the drug, which means people need to take larger and larger doses to achieve the same high.

For some, there can be the opposite effect – where just small amounts are enough to prompt a rush.

Psychological withdrawal symptoms can hang around for many weeks and may include intense cravings, depression, anxiety and angry outbursts.

Physical withdrawal symptoms include tremors, nausea, insomnia and muscle pain.

Not something you'd want to deal with on the school pick-up run.

So what is it with Murdoch journalists and drugs ... especially cocaine? No, I’m not talking about the hypocrite Piers Akerman and his alleged coke habit but those who suddenly write some incredible story of drugs reeking havoc on societies values? Do they feel that they must make a contribution to the anti-drug effort regardless of whether they have something to say or not? It seems that way if you read Jackie Sinnerton’s article. First of all, is this story made up? It feels like a collection of clichés, scenes from a bad novel and moral claptrap rolled into one. Seriously, someone monitoring the kids giving the all-clear, it’s OK to do drugs now ... the kids are asleep! And designated abstainer ... in case of a child emergency? Pffft. Is this really a scene from an 80s TV movie? The bit that got me laughing loudest though was the names that cocaine is supposedly called.

It's not called "the Addicter" or "Great Deceiver" for no reason
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

The “Great Deceiver”? Oh, dear god, strike me down. It’s certainly not a term I am familiar with but a little bit of research on the intertubes shows that Satan is usually called The Great Deceiver along with a few examples of various drugs. Reelizations Media produced the very popular Marijuana and Recovery Counselor Guide which references marijuana as The Great Deceiver. The California Department of Justice released a video called, Meth: The Great Deceiver in 2002 and in 1990, the US Drug Czar, William Bennett wrote an article in First Things, published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life. Here’s an extract:

I continue to be amazed at how often people I speak to in treatment centers refer to drugs as the great lie, the great deception, indeed as a product of the Great Deceiver. An astonishing number of people in treatment have described crack cocaine to me simply as “the Devil.”
 -William J. Bennett : First Things - Drugs and the Face of Evil

So where the hell did Jackie Sinnerton get the idea that cocaine is commonly known as The Great Deceiver? If you think this definition is amusing then Google the other well known name, “cocaine - "the Addicter"”. The result ... oh. mmm well, there is no record anywhere of cocaine being called “The Addicter” except in her own article. The author just made it up. This should give us a clue to the authenticity of the article and what depths the Murdoch press will lower itself to. Pooeeeee! - forget all that. Who cares? It’s such a fun read and an opportunity to see how far some so called journalists will go to write an interesting story.

Coke, crack, dust, nose candy, white lady – whatever you want to call it – cocaine kills people
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

Dust? Crack? White Lady? Apart from crack being a different form of cocaine and comes as a rock that can’t be snorted, who the hell calls cocaine “dust” or “white lady”? Maybe in Starsky and Hutch or CHIPS but not in the real world down-under. Well as far as I know.

But according to the experts there is no such thing as recreational drug taking
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

There’s at least 150,000,000 recreational drug users worldwide who might disagree with this statement. And who are these experts she quotes?

It is ridiculous to think that you can use cocaine recreationally
 -Drug Arm counsellor Richard Norman

Oh, not an expert but a counsellor for an organisation(Drug Arm) that originated from the Temperance Movement 2 centuries ago. Remember the Temperance Movement? Their claim to fame is alcohol prohibition in the US and the push to ban drugs.

This article is just more drug hysteria from the Murdoch press designed to sell papers and collect webpage hits. Incidentally, the article was published simultaneously with another piece about suburban cocaine use, Housewives Turn To Cocaine Abuse In Queensland. Co-written by Sinnerton and Paula Doneman, the article is filed under that infamous Courier Mail special, The Drugs Scourge which may give us some insight into the it’s contents. The article is wrapped up nicely by one reader:

Ahead of the release of new findings from the Crime and Misconduct Commission on illicit drugs, intelligence director Chris Keen confirmed that cocaine use in Queensland "is more prevalent over a wider range of demographics"....where does this say anything specific about "housewives"...the whole article is based on the suppostions of ONE man...Richard Norman who said...""I could see how stressed-out, middle-class housewives would single out cocaine to help them perform better at work, look after a family and house and still have the energy to party," Jackie Sinnerton and Paula Doneman have taken this remark and ran with it..they and the Couriermail should be ashamed of themselves..but I suppose the headline is the thing and drug addicted housewives reads better than..increase in drug addicts in south east Queensland. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I agree this story is plagiarised and deliberately skewed to target housewives.
Posted by: lyn of melbourne 4:09pm November 01, 2009
-Comment from Courier Mail Reader

The claims of inevitable problems like tremors, nausea, insomnia, muscle pain and addiction are what a hard core addict might suffer and not what a standard recreational cocaine user would encounter. Also, what has been left out of these articles is more important than what was included with much of it merely opinions without any evidence or backing.

There is nothing but bad news at the end of the white dust track
-The Courier Mail: Cocaine Parties Thrive In Suburbia by Jackie Sinnerton

As cocaine use rapidly increases, the number of those requiring treatment hasn’t risen proportionally. It's probably because the addiction level of cocaine(17%) and alcohol(15%) are nearly the same. The truth is, most cocaine users take it in moderation and usually reserve it for special occasions. Similar to how most drinkers choose to exploit their drug of choice. Most drinkers don't need treatment and neither do most cocaine users.

The World Health Organisation conducted the largest ever study of global cocaine use in 1995 and stated:

Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems … a minority of people start using cocaine or related products, use casually for a short or long period, and suffer little or no negative consequences, even after years of use
-World Health Organisation Report

Sadly, this report was just too truthful for the "War on Drugs" mindset of the US and UN. The US threatened to withdraw funding for all of the WHO’s research projects and interventions unless they "dissociated itself from the study" and withdraw the publication. The report was shelved and never released. So now we are left with articles from the trash media and the constant lies and exaggeration from anti-drug zealots. No wonder we have a drug problem.

In June 2009, an excellent article by Ben Goldacre detailed the WHO cocaine report and the subsequent coverup in the Uk newspaper, The Guardian. This is a must-read article: Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US.


Related Articles:
Housewives Turn To Cocaine Abuse In Queensland - The Courier Mail
Cocaine study that got up the nose of the US - The Guardian
Journalist Should Be Ashamed
Cocaine - Australia’s Next Drug Epidemic?
CourierMail - The Media Scourge

Drug Users are Part of the Community and Deserve Respect

MEDIA RELEASE
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Drug Users Say:  

We Are Part Of The Community And Deserve To Be Treated With Respect And Dignity

The national peak organisation representing people who use illicit drugs, the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL), is joining with communities of people who use illicit drugs from around the world to celebrate International Drug Users Day on 1 November 2009.

In celebrating this day we are speaking as people who use illicit drugs to tell the world that we are valuable members of the community, who come from all walks of life and are people who care about the world we live in. We are proud of our survival in a climate that criminalises, demonises and stigmatises all people who use illicit drugs as worthless, selfish, criminals.

Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer stated “We are not a small and insignificant group of people; we are your family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, in short, we are part of your community. We deserve equitable access to health services, civil and human rights and same respect and opportunities afforded all members of Australian society.”

We live with the constant grief of losing loved ones due to overdose and diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Love ones whose lives could have been saved had we removed the criminalisation of drug use and provided access to an expanded range of drug treatments now available in many countries around the world. As a community we have fought hard for our right to access drug treatments that are accessible, affordable and meet our needs.

On International Drug Users Day 2009 AIVL is calling for an expansion to the range of treatment options available including heroin prescription programs and injectable methadone, buprenorphine and morphine. “The international evidence is indisputable in relation to the efficacy of these programs. Numerous evaluations have now shown that providing injectable pharmacotherapy programs has improved people’s health, their social and living conditions, their ability to participate in study and employment and reduced crime.” Ms Madden added.

AIVL believes one of the most important aspects of these programs is that they save lives. Australian and international studies have shown that people who access drug treatment programs are significantly more protected from dying due to a drug-related overdose than those not in pharmacotherapy treatment. One Australian study has shown that; one in 100 people using heroin on the street die from overdose compared with one overdose death for every 485 people for those on a methadone pharmacotherapy program.

“Australian drug users deserve access to programs that protect their lives and should be given the opportunity to choose from the widest possible evidence-based drug treatment options in order to get the best ‘treatment fit’. Furthermore, we want these choices now, not as a last option when we have hit so-called ‘rock bottom’. Being able to engage in a drug treatment option of our choice, that suits our needs, should not have to come at the price of our lives being in devastation before we are offered or become eligible for these programs” stressed Ms Madden.

Too often heroin prescription programs are talked about only as an option of ‘last resort’. AIVL is concerned that we are thinking about heroin prescription in the wrong way. It should be offered alongside other treatment options for anyone seeking to manage an opioid dependency. “We believe we should have access to the full range of treatment options available, anything less is an infringement upon our human rights and potentially exposes many people to discrimination, criminalisation, disease and death simply because we have refused to heed the now overwhelming evidence supporting such programs” Ms Madden concluded.

Media Contact: Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer on ph: (02) 6279 1600 or mobile: 0414 628 136.


Annie Madden
Executive Officer
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Ph: (02) 6279 1600
Fax: (02) 6279 1610
Email: anniem@aivl.org.au
Website: www.aivl.org.au
Mobile: 0414 628 136

Street Address:
Level 2, Sydney Building
112-116 Alinga Street
Canberra ACT 2601

Postal Address:
GPO Box 1552
Canberra ACT 2601

UN vs UN - Decriminalising Drug Use and Human Rights Abuse

When the UN's top health rights official publicly contradicts the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), you know something is brewing.

Driven by the US’s "War on Drugs", the UNODC along with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) have kept an iron grip on how the world administers their drug policies promoting fear, intimidation and harsh laws. This has resulted in millions of unnecessary deaths and untold suffering around the world especially for minority groups. This prohibitionist approach is also responsible for; a huge shortage of morphine for pain treatment(especially poorer nations), a rapidly growing prison population, much of the world’s crime, extreme alienation and despair for users and addicts and the world’s second largest industry giving organised crime/terrorists $400 billion dollar a year.

The UN’s policy of denying drug use is a medical issue and putting it firmly under the wing of law enforcement has been taken up differently by each country with some going to extremes. Because the UN’s drug policies is based on the belief that drug use is immoral, countries are free to interpret the moral aspect to suit their ideology or political position. Although the recent trend is to replace the moral argument with facts and science, most countries have followed the UN/US lead and implemented a harsh, cruel system to deal with drugs.

In a surprise speech, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, Anand Grover has heavily criticised some Asian countries for their treatment of drug users and addicts which is ironic because they are simply following the guidelines of the UN’s drug policy. Anand Grover pointed that after years of abuse, cruel treatment practices and draconian laws, the 90% relapse rate was a sign that the current system was a failure. But the biggest upset was his call for decriminalisation of drug use. Something that the UNODC has firmly rejected as an option under any circumstance.

This must come as a real shock for Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of the UNODC. He has continually dodged questions about the effectiveness of UN drug policy over the years and ignored many requests to explain why countries with more liberal drug laws have far fewer drug problems than those that support UN drug policies. Costa has also fluffed off claims of human rights abuse resulting from the UN’s prohibitionist strategy. For one of his own to discredit the policies he so rigourously defends must add to his frustration of pushing such failed policies. But it’s just another blow in a long line of criticism that has followed Costa and his impotent yet arrogant support of prohibition.

Listen to an interview with Anand Grover on Radio National or read it here

UN Official Calls For Decriminalizing Drug Use
Monsters and Critics.com
October 2009


Hanoi - The UN's top health rights official called Tuesday for the decriminalization of drug use and an end to mandatory drug rehabilitation camps in Asia, which he said amounted to 'keeping sick people jailed.'

Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, made the call at a conference on international health rights in Hanoi.

'The criminalization of these practices actually hinders the right to health of all persons,' Grover said. He denounced the practice by many Asian states, including China, India, Malaysia and Vietnam, of compelling drug addicts to detoxify in mass treatment camps.

There are over 50,000 inmates of mandatory drug treatment camps in Vietnam, and up to 350,000 in China, according to the Open Society Institute.

Heroin addicts who detoxify in rehabilitation camps have relapse rates exceeding 90 per cent. Most scientific experts now advocate oral substitution therapy with drugs such as methadone and buprenorphine, which eliminate the craving for heroin.

But many countries are reluctant to embrace such therapy, which they consider substituting one drug dependency for another. In Vietnam, heroin addicts are sent to mandatory rehabilitation centers for up to four years.

Several Vietnamese experts at the conference said their country was gradually moving away from the treatment center approach and embracing substitution therapy. The country's 2007 law on AIDS adopted a so-called 'harm reduction' approach to drug addiction, rather than focusing solely on detoxification.

A pilot program of Vietnamese methadone clinics began operating in April 2008. Six methadone clinics now serve 1600 former heroin addicts in Haiphong and Ho Chi Minh City, funded with grants from the US PEPFAR anti-AIDS program.

About 95 per cent of those receiving methadone have stuck with the program, said Dr Nguyen To Nhu, Vietnam program director of Family Health International, which helps run the clinics.

Dr Le Giang, a Vietnamese researcher who has studied the clinics, said the failure of detoxification at treatment camps often led to a fatalistic belief that quitting heroin was impossible.

'Many families, and even drug users themselves, completely lost their faith in treatment,' Giang said. He said many users had been inspired by the ability of methadone to restore their 'ownership of their own bodies and lives.'

Giang said there was 'much more openness, from the top level to the community level, to talk about [methadone treatment], but there's still a long way to go.'

© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com

Related Articles:
Drug Addiction Treatment Camp
2009 U.N. World Drug Report - What’s All The Fuss?
Asian Drug Users Unite To Form Regional Organisation

40,000 Users Quit to Prevent One Case of Schizophrenia

0.0025% - That’s the chances of preventing one single case of schizophrenia when an average user ceases using cannabis. In other words, you would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users to prevent one case of schizophrenia. For heavy users, it would require 7,800 of them to stop using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia. That’s a rate of 0.013%. These are the latest findings from scientists in the UK.

Excuse my average intelligence and lack of science degree but shouldn’t facts like this remove the consideration of schizophrenia in determining drug policies regarding cannabis? Can the cannabis debate now exclude schizophrenia? Will governments and anti-drug crusaders suddenly drop their key argument against cannabis in light of the growing evidence? Or will this study simply be ignored as they hang on to public ignorance, parental fear and tenuous links that served them so well in the past? If we use history as a guide, the anti-cannabis zealots will ignore this new evidence for as long as possible and continue to skirt around the important issues. This will suit the government just fine considering we still have some politicians quoting that old, debunked Gateway Theory as a reason why they are going to tighten cannabis laws.

The chances are that you will not read about this result in any major newspaper or media outlet. It was only a few months ago that Keele university in the UK concluded that whilst cannabis use had increased by about 400% since the 1980s, cases of mental health disorders had not increased as well but actually decreased slightly. You may not remember this news because it was not reported by Australia’s MSM or by any major international media outlet that I noticed. No wonder the public is so ignorant about drugs when our major media organisations do not publish any information that might upset the anti-drug bandwagon. Add to that the reluctance of our politicians to use these findings in their policies and instead droning on with anti-drug rhetoric from the 80s.

New Study Suggests Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia or Psychosis
physorg.com
October 2009

Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of schizophrenia in young people. But the evidence for the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis remains controversial. A new study has determined that it may be necessary to stop thousands of cannabis users in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia.

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

That's just part of the story. Interventions to prevent cannabis use typically do not succeed for every person who is treated. Depending on how effective an intervention is at preventing cannabis use, it would be necessary to treat even higher numbers of users to achieve the thousands of successful results necessary to prevent a very few cases of schizophrenia.

Matt Hickman, one of the authors of the report published last week in the scholarly journal Addiction, said that "preventing cannabis use is important for many reasons - including reducing tobacco and drug dependence and improving school performance. But our evidence suggests that focusing on schizophrenia may have been misguided. Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that many people need to give up cannabis in order to have an impact on the number of people with schizophrenia. The likely impact of re-classifying cannabis in the UK on schizophrenia or psychosis incidence is very uncertain."

WARNING! - Drug Users Being Responsible ... Again!

What is it with the mention of drugs that send journalists into a frenzy of drug hysteria? Is it the journalist or is it the media organisation they are writing for that creates a maelstrom of exaggeration, panic and moral frenzy? The Australian Heroin Diaries has previously reported on some real cracker articles by Fiona Connelly, Sally Morrell, Piers Akerhead, Miranda Devine, Laurie Nowell etc. Except for the Devine Ms. Miranda, they all write for news.com.au. So what possessed Ben Harvy and Lauren Zwaans to write the article in the Adelaide Advertiser titled, Drug Dealers And Users Can Google Up A Few Hits?

Let’s see. It had nothing to do with drug dealers, nothing to do with “hits” and nothing to do with Google. That kind of spoils the clever headline pun. Maybe it’s part of the Adelaide Advertiser’s attempt to run it’s own special investigation like the CourierMail’s, The Drug Scourge from a few months back? Gawd, I hope not. Why then write about the website, Pillreports.com? I can recall reading about Pillreports.com a few times but that was years ago. It’s not surprising though since Pillreports.com has been around for nearly 10 years. So why is this news all of a sudden? There’s nothing new to report except a few comments from Drug and Alcohol Services (South Australia) executive director Keith Evans and SA Detective Inspector John De Candia. And what was the important message that commanded a whole article in a city newspaper ... Drugs are Bad mmkay! Oh, and a threat of life in jail if you are “carrying commercial and large commercial quantities” of illegal drugs. I must acknowledge Keith Evans and John De Candia though for the advice that seeking information from Pillreports.com might be rife with danger. Since the government flatly refuses to offer pill testing services (a decision they both support), the alternative is to pop away and hope for the best. Thanks for the safety tip fellas.

However you interpret the article, it’s still old news.

Pill Poppers Sharing Drug Reviews Online
Drug Users Issue Ecstasy Warning
Deadly New Mix Of Nye Party Drugs
Drug Takers Use Web To Find Best Deals For Cocaine, Ice, Heroin, Ecstasy

Inthemix.com.au wrote about news.com.au and their article, Pill Poppers Sharing Drug Reviews Online back in July 2008. It’s a great insight into how news.com.au source their information.

Pillreports.com is an international website run by Enlighten Harm Reduction, a lobbyist organisation in Melbourne. Please check them out as they provide some excellent services.

Drug Dealers And Users Can Google Up A Few Hits
Adelaide Advertiser
By Ben Harvy and Lauren Zwaans
October 2009


A WEBSITE acting as an open forum for ecstasy dealers and users is exposing the truth about Adelaide's drug underworld.

The pillreports.com website contains conversations between people about their experiences with drugs and the latest pills to hit the streets.

On the website, there are candid recommendations between users on what pills they deem "safe" to try, which is worrying experts.

Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia executive director Keith Evans said there was a cultural phenomenon emerging in which people saw themselves as "experts".

"It's a really worrying trend - the sort of culture that says `I got it from Jim. Everybody who's got their stuff from Jim has said Jim's stuff is good and therefore ipso facto I believe Jim's stuff is good, we'll all search out Jim'," he said.

"The reality isn't like that.

"Where Jim happens to have got it (the drugs) from will differ and even if you take out the legal consequences of it, you're always taking a gamble - it's Russian roulette."

The most recent Adelaide update on the pillreports website was submitted by user machetevip: "I'm going to be trying these Saturday night (ecstasy pills) and will update with a user report but so far these are looking quite good," he wrote.

A subsequent report detailed a timeline of machetevip's experience on the drugs.

"I was dancing and chatty and had some nice feelings on them," machetevip said.

There were 12 responses to the user report.

But Detective Inspector John De Candia said the health and legal consequences of illicit drug taking remained.

"Just because they're buying from the same seller does not mean they're buying from the same batch," he said. "It does not provide them any safeguards."

He said trafficking penalties in Australia for carrying commercial and large commercial quantities could result in "hefty penalties" ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment.

Syringe Exchange Programs Are Saving Lives

Syringe Exchange Programs (SEPs) have been controversial since they were first officially introduced in the Netherlands in 1984. Since then, the issue of giving out clean syringes to inject illicit drugs has plagued politicians worldwide. They were faced with opposition from vocal moral crusaders, an ignorant public and attacks from other politicians while there was growing scientific evidence that SEPs prevented many deaths. It was a case of losing voters or losing lives. While most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. worried about losing lives to HIV/AIDS, the US worried more about losing votes. As cases of HIV/AIDS and Hep C. rocketed up in the US, early adopters of SEPs, especially Australia had much better success at minimising the spread of blood borne diseases.

Giving out clean syringes to drug users existed long before SEPs was made official. In 1970, the San Francisco State University unofficially gave away clean syringes as a way to deal with yellow jaundice and abscesses from shooting heroin. This practice spread to the San Francisco General Hospital and in the early days of the HIV epidemic, some doctors and nurses would leave unopened packets of syringes in clear view of drug users then leave the room expecting the packets to be gone when they returned. Looking back now, it really hits home how draconian we can be in this so called modern civilisation.

United States

Regardless of this evidence, the use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs was banned in the United States of America in 1988. Most U.S. states criminalize the possession of needles without a prescription, even going so far as to arrest people as they leave private needle-exchange facilities. Nonetheless, every state in the United States has a program that supports needle exchange in some form or the purchase of new needles without a prescription at pharmacies.These programs were introduced during the Clinton Administration but were disbanded following negative public reactions to the initiatives. Covert programs still exist within the United States.
-Wikipedia

Although the evidence has been conclusive for decades from dozens of well established studies, the US remained defiant. At least 7 attempts to introduce federal recognition and funding for SEPs have been over turned by the reigning president of the time. President Bill Clinton promised to change the federal position but his drug czar, William Mcafferey convinced him that allowing SEPs would “send the wrong message” in their fight against drugs. it is estimated that 10,000 lives and 500 million dollars in health care could have been saved during his 8 year presidency if Bill Clinton removed the ban on federal funding.

By 2000, 36% of all AIDS cases and approximately 50% of new HIV infections had occurred among injecting drug users and their partners.

I do not favor needle exchange programs and other so-called harm reduction strategies to combat drug use. I support a comprehensive mix of prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement and supply interdiction to curb drug use and promote a healthy drug free America, not misguided efforts to weaken drug laws and needle exchange programs signal nothing but abdication, that these dangers are here to stay. America needs a president who will aim not just for risk reduction, but for risk elimination that offers people hope and recovery, not a dead end approach that offers despair and addiction.
-President G.W. Bush. Annual meeting of the AIDS foundation of Chicago. 2000

The ban on federal funding remains. In the run up to the 2008 election, Barrack Obama made a key campaign pledge to remove the ban on federal funding for SEPs. In May 2009 after being elected president, the pledge disappeared off the Obama website and when his health budget appeared shortly afterwards, the ban remained, buried deep on page 795.

Australia
It started in 1986 with a group of Sydney users who illegally distributed clean syringes at St. Vincent’s hospital under the watch of Dr. Alex Wodak. Since then, Australia has become an international leader in harm reduction with one of lowest rates of HIV/AIDS infections. Unfortunately though, with over a decade of conservative governments and strong criticism of harm reduction from the media, Australia has started to stagnate, losing it’s once impeccable reputation. While SEPs remain a major part of our health system, more recent Harm Reduction strategies are being ignored or opposed by the federal and state governments. The only major exception is the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross.

In the early years of HIV/AIDS before condoms and clean needles were standard fare, the government took a pragmatic approach and spent $150 million dollars between 1988 and 2000. This prevented intravenous drug users from an estimated 25,000 cases of HIV and 21,000 cases of hepatitis C. A saving for taxpayers of up to $7.7 billion dollars.

Since then, the total lives saved and the amount of reduced costs is staggering. Surprisingly, there are still some groups who oppose SEPs and lobby the government not to increase the number of programs. The most recent controversial proposal is the introduction of SEPs into prisons but in terms of targeting susceptible groups, prisoners have the highest rate of blood borne diseases in our society. This is mostly because of a high number of intravenous drug users in prison who are also sharing hard to get needles. Those opposed to SEPs in prison use the same old reasoning that causes most of the current drug problems we have already. You have probably heard them before e.g. “it’s a prison, not a holiday camp” or “it sends the wrong message” or “we should be getting these people off drugs not encouraging them to use more” or “we should be trying to stop drugs getting into prison not making it easier for them to use drugs”. Of course, these arguments simply ignore the reality of drug use and places selfish ideology before the safety of others.

The issue is this — there are about 20,000 men and women being released every year. Many of them have got significant health problems, with blood-borne disease a major element of that. They are going in and out of the prison system and bringing those diseases to their families and their communities. Making clean needles accessible is one easy, relatively cheap way of dealing with that. It’s called public health.
-Gino Vumbaca. CEO of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Sterile injecting equipment in prisons is a no brainer just as a prison methadone program is. Access to these basic health resources is vital to tackling the spread of blood born disease especially in prison where the problem is most prevalent. Denying these services in prison is simply sentencing injecting drug users to a life of suffering or death. Each day that these programs are opposed, a few more fellow humans are tagged for an early grave.

Needle Program Success
The Age
By Julia Medew
October 2009

TAXI drivers, tradesmen and body builders are among the growing number of people using St Kilda's 24-hour needle and syringe exchange program - the only service that operates all night, every night in Victoria.

The manager of health services for the Salvation Army's Crisis Service, Sue White, said that since the Grey Street program started operating round the clock in late 2007, it had helped an extra 1000 people get clean equipment every month.

Aside from local sex workers, she said, tradesmen were using the after-hours service alongside truck drivers and a small number of taxi drivers.

Body builders who take steroids were also attending.

An evaluation of the 24-hour service by the Salvation Army and Monash University found it had contributed to a 51 per cent rise in the number of needles and syringes being distributed between August 2007 and September 2008. The number returned for safe disposal increased 26 per cent.

Ms White said the service had prevented people from sharing equipment - a practice known to spread viruses including HIV and hepatitis C. It had also exposed people to referrals for counselling, detox programs and other health-care services.

The evaluation found that since the service extended its hours, there had been little change in drug-related crime or complaints to the local council.

Ms White said other needle and syringe exchanges should consider expanding their hours, based on its success.

A Victorian Taxi Directorate spokeswoman said it was not aware of any drivers using drugs. She said it was working with police ''to identify drivers who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol''.

A spokesman for the Victorian Taxi Association said he had also not heard of drivers using illicit drugs.

''It's very surprising and a bit concerning … It's something we will look at,'' he said.

I had to chuckle at the comments from the various taxi organisations. Both spokespeople claimed they had never, ever heard of a driver that used drugs.They sounded stunned!. Why wouldn’t taxi drivers be drug users? Are taxi drivers exempt from such evils in society? In my time, I have seen a taxi driver score heroin from a street dealer, had dozens of cabs drive me then wait while I score and I even purchased speed from one taxi driver. Over a 20 year period and you would expect it to happen sometime. Their responses appeared more like an instant reaction to protect their organisation than the truth. Regardless of their reasons, it had me smiling for a few minutes.

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

An update on the proposed new cannabis laws for WA.

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

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

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

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

Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portfolio: Premier

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

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

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

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

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

“Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.

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

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

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

The new cannabis-related laws will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Premier's office: 9222 9475

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