Show Us Your Drug Policy!

Our New Drug Policy

The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) has written to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott with some questions about their alcohol and drugs policies. I thought I might check out their existing drug policies first but was dismayed to find that they didn’t exist. Both parties had a drug policy not too long ago which raises the question, why were they removed? Where is that infamous Liberal Party, "Tough on Drugs" policy that Howard, Pyne, Bishop (really old one), Mirabella, Ley and Abbott etc. were so defensive of? Where is Labor’s carbon copy? I notice The greens have a very clear and concise drug policy, albeit somewhat watered down in an attempt to appear more mainstream. And why is it that The Greens are the only major party to focus on Australia’s official drug policy of Harm Minimisation? 

Letter to Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard

With time running out in the run-up to the 21 August Federal Election, the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) sector is disappointed that YOUR policies on alcohol and other drugs have not been made public. Most importantly, the AOD sector wants to know will AOD services fit within the YOUR Government’s plans for National Primary Health Care Reform?

[…]

The Australian Greens have come forward with their National Health Care Plan and are to be congratulated for opening up the debate which you, as the leader of YOUR Party, must appreciate is an opportunity to take affirmative action to provide answers to our concerns. To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs (AOD) initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services.

ADCA urges you to recognise the critical importance of giving the highest priority to the health and social problems of AOD misuse, and the need for a strong, adequately trained, and funded AOD sector to address the continuing harms this causes. It is of great importance to the organisations and service providers ADCA represents that YOUR policies and commitment to the services and people who work in the AOD sector are made public, and that they address the context and principles that have been identified.

[…]

The announcement of the proposed Australian National Health Reform (NHHN) has the potential for substantial implications for the AOD sector. Treatment for AOD problems includes a range of service types including assessment, opiate substitution, withdrawal and post-withdrawal treatment, residential rehabilitation and drug counselling.

[…]

Acknowledging that the NHHN will reform the structure of health services, the funding models, and the funders, it is understood that the timeline for consideration of AOD treatment services has been scheduled for December 2010. While individuals and disciplines across the diverse AOD service system may hold differing views about the best arrangements for AOD services, there is agreement on the following core principles for treatment:

1. AOD addiction, or dependence, is a chronic medical condition with important social aspects. People with AOD problems often require a wide range of interventions over a long period of time. Strong linkages need to exist between a range of services types for patients to be able to experience good continuity of care and smooth referral processes between treatment types.
2. AOD services need to exist within non-government and primary health care settings.
3. A range of disciplines need to be involved (as mentioned previously), and cover both specialist and generalist practitioners.
4. Treatment must be based on evidence and based on demonstrated quality of treatment.
5. AOD services need to be adequately funded on a transparent funding formula. Historically and presently throughout Australia, salaries in the AOD sector have been below market standards, making it difficult to raise treatment and assistance services to an evidence-based standard.

ADCA, the AOD sector, and particularly undecided voters deserve to know where you and YOUR party stand on the future health and wellbeing of all Australians.

--Letter to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott from The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) [Full Letter Here]

You can exhale now. Tony Abbott has responded.

Thank you for your recent email to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP. As you may be aware, the Prime Minister has called a Federal Election. Unfortunately, from Opposition, we do not have the resources to respond to your email in detail during the campaign period, but your concerns will be brought to Tony’s attention and that of the Coalition Team.

After three years of Labor Government failures, Australians now have a choice. Broken promises, increased cost of living pressures, massive debt, a Budget deficit, waste and mismanagement and new taxes are all placing unnecessary pressures on Australians. Further, Labor have removed a Prime Minister quickly and ruthlessly, ignoring the wishes of Australian voters. But it is the same government with the same problems creating the same mess.

I hope you will get behind Tony in the weeks ahead as he seeks to stand up for Australia and take real action to end the waste, repay the debt, stop the taxes and ease the cost of living pressures on families. If you would like to read more detailed policy information please go to www.liberal.org.au

--Response form the Liberal Party.

Boy, what a let down. One paragraph explaining they are too busy to have a policy and two more paragraphs of scripted Liberal Party spin.

I remember not too long ago that the Libs were all "Tough on Drugs" and even held an enquiry called The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Several party heavyweights told us the Rudd government was losing focus on the drug war and had to toughen up. Even the leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull admitted to smoking weed but was then quick to point out, it was a mistake as we know now how dangerous pot is. So, where has the “Tough on Drugs" policy gone?

Yes, I've smoked pot. 

[…]

I think now, with what we know about marijuana, I think it is a very serious drug and it is a drug that we should strongly discourage everybody, be they young or old, but obviously particularly young people, from using.

--Malcolm Turnbull

At least the Libs responded to the ADCA letter (sort of). Where was Joolia’s reply? Maybe it’s the long term memory problems that go hand in hand with smoking the killer weed? You see, Joolia is also a self confessed, one time pot smoker. Not to beaten by a Lib namely, Malcolm Turnbull, the following day, Jools said: 

At university, tried it, didn't like it

[…]

I think probably many Australian adults would be able to make the same statement so I don't think it matters one way or the other.

--Julia Gillard

You would think that with so many political leaders (including Tony Abbott) confessing to breaking the law and admitting to drug use, they would be more informed about the drug issue.

On a side note, I what to know what politicians tried something harder. At least several US politicians including President Obama (and G.W. Bush in a round about way) admitted to using cocaine. During the 1970s, 80s and 90s, speed, magic mushrooms and LSD were making the rounds and any self respecting university student was bound to have participated at least once. C’mon guys … where’s the confessions of having a few lines of whiz or brewing up a batch of shrooms?

On Wednesday, The National Press Club presented The Hon Nicola Roxon MP VS The Hon Peter Dutton MP health debate. A major disappointment for those who were waiting for a drug policy announcement or discussion. Instead, we got the usual garble with promises to out do each other and each speaker claiming their party had the better health policy. Oh, there was one question about alcohol.

It’s easy to see why organisations like ADCA are disappointed. They are constantly ignored and made to suffer the consequences of misguided drug policies. And when they get finally get a chance to put some pressure on the major parties, they are just shoved aside for more pressing issues like Mark Latham, the real Julia vs. the old Julia or whether no more Workchoices means no more Workchoices. Below is another media alert from ADCA.

ADCA Media Alert (9 August): Three Weeks On – Where are the Alcohol & other Drugs Policies? – Election 2010.- With three weeks down and only 12 days to Election 2010, the conspicuous absence of major policy announcements on alcohol and other drugs (AOD) issues is disturbing.

“The AOD sector wants and needs more than a few elementary statements from Labor, the Liberals, Greens, and the Independents,” the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA), Mr David Templeman, said today. “It is not enough to read about the National Health Care Plan from the Greens, mental health funding and ‘a new investment to tackle AOD abuse in Indigenous communities’ from Labor, and a passing reference to healthcare in the Liberals campaign launch. 

“These are insufficient to stem concerns that all political parties have relegated the immense damaging impact alcohol and other drugs, both licit and illicit, are having on communities, to the bottom of their policy piles.”

Mr Templeman said that the Opposition missed an ideal opportunity at its launch to address the critical AOD priority for all Australians.

“With media reports suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition will consider his position on plain packaging for cigarettes, does this then mean that the alternative government will adopt the same approach on alcohol and other drugs and not come out publicly with definitive policies,” Mr Templeman said. “ADCA can only hope the schedule debate at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday (11 August) will result in both Labor and the Liberals making substantive statements that alcohol and other drugs issues are front and centre in their respective National Primary Healthcare Reform programs.”

Mr Templeman said that the AOD sector would be watching this debate with interest to see what both the Minister for Health, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, and the Opposition Spokesperson on Health, Mr Peter Dutton MP, plan to deliver if elected to Government.  

“To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services,” Mr Templeman said. “If our two major parties won’t come clean on just where alcohol and other drugs sit in Election 2010, ADCA calls on all media organisations to start questioning what is actually planned for a holistic approach to National Healthcare Reform.” 

UPDATE
The Sex Party have released their drug policy. Three cheers to Fiona Pattern and The Sex Party for their scientific yet pragmatic approach to such an important issue.

RED ALERT - Deadly Pot Growers to Go Free!

Go inside NOW. 

Lock the windows and the doors. 

Check your daughters whereabouts. 

Make sure you have weapons. 

Turn your lights off and hide. 

You have been warned!

Editorial: Delayed Justice Comes At A Cost To Community

The Advertiser 

August 2010

THE Rann Government has never had the time, nor the patience, for leaks and loopholes. Time and again, it has moved quickly to plug any gap that may cause embarrassment or detriment.

So it was that, in September 2009, the Government amended the Controlled Substances Act (1984).

By deleting the word "dried" from the definition of a controlled drug, the Government ensured possession of any form of cannabis be it fresh or dry would be a crime.

That commendable move has now been undone, sadly, by a persistent and seemingly unfixable thorn in the Government's side.

Because of the chronic logjam of cases in the District Court, around 20 drug trials pre-dating that amendment are yet to go before juries.

Those cases must be prosecuted under the terms of the old legislation and therein lies the Government's problem. That old legislation clearly states it is an offence to possess "dried cannabis materials".

That means stems, flowers and leaves ready to smoke are a controlled drug, while fresh cuttings are not.

Fresh cuttings may be subject to different charges such as manufacturing or harvesting a drug, but that is not what those 20 defendants are accused of.

It is too late and would, in any event, be unjust to shift the goal posts now.

That means those 20 prosecutions are all but guaranteed to fail.

The loophole has been strengthened by a recent Court of Criminal Appeal ruling, upholding the old legislation.

Alleged drug dealers and defence lawyers now have a bright, shiny peg on which to hang their hats.

When the Government altered the Controlled Substances Act, it did so with a minimum of fanfare.

One wonders if that was an attempt to avoid the sort of high-profile embarrassment that has now fallen from the court's decision.

The real victims in this situation are the hard-working members of SA Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Their efforts to detect, arrest and prosecute alleged drug dealers and cannabis farmers have been undone, and are now likely to come to naught.

Amending the legislation was the right thing to do but it was also too little, too late.

Often is it said that "justice delayed is justice denied". Seldom has that been as true as it is today.

It seems that some evil drug lords are about to be unleashed onto the community, guaranteeing carnage and havoc. According to the author of this article, the police and court prosecutors, the very fabric of society and our moral standards are risk. They are clearly devastated and may require medical assistance. And who knows what the evil drug barons will do. Are our children safe?

Pffft. The silliness of the situation is only matched by the silliness of the article.

On a serious note, cannabis is a worthless plant. It can grow almost anywhere with very little help. But once you you ban it, it becomes a valuable commodity. In an attempt to capitalise on it’s artificial value, growers focus on making their crop as strong as possible where it loses the cannabinoids that balance out the negative effects from the active ingredient, THC. This can make it harmful. Add to that, the incredible profits that can be made because of it’s illegality and you have a product that attracts organised crime including all the violence that goes with the illicit drug trade. A great lesson on how to convert a wild, worthless plant into a multi-billion dollar, black market industry.

At least the original report in The Advertiser titled, Court’s Cannabis Ruling Jeopardises 20 Cases stuck with the facts but it did produce some cracker comments from readers. Here are some of them:

Boo Hoo, whatever will S.A do now when such heinous criminals about to walk free!

-Hmm

More money and precious police resources wasted. When will the Government tell taxpayers how much the phony drug war costs?

-Lysistrata of Adelaide

Just legalise, tax and regulate it.

-JC of Adelaide

So can the drug producers who are covered by this loophole sue the State to retrieve their equipment??

-Susan

Does the enormous personal, social, political and financial influence placed on this plant by current legislation seem ridiculous to anybody else? Just me? Ok.

-Everybody

They fear for 20 cases? Fear what? Fear the guy that will go home, smoke a joint and giggle to himself?

-Mary Jay

New Media Vs Old Media

On the ABC’s website, The Drum examines how Wikileaks exposed the leaked classified military reports concerning the war in Afghanistan. They question why a small group like Wikileaks can produce such a shocking expose’ about the Afghani war that trumps anything produced by the mainstream media. But the real issue is, what effect is the internet having on journalism and the media.

Thirdly, the release of the Afghan logs constitutes a damning indictment on the traditional pillars of journalism. Wikileaks is a tiny organisation: basically, a bunch of computer nerds supported by a handful of volunteers. Yet, in the short period of its existence, it has broken an extraordinary number of big stories, from the 'Collateral Murder' footage of the Apache helicopter in Iraq to corruption in Kenya. As one admirer put it, "Wikileaks has probably produced more scoops in its short life than the Washington Post has in the past 30 years".

-- The Drum: The Power Of New Media (by Jeff Sparrow)

It was just too tempting and I had to add my 15¢ worth.

The Drum Comments:

Terry Wright

28 Jul 2010 5:10:09pm

--

New media such as the internet is having a huge effect that we may not be noticing. 

Take drug policy for example. Much of us get our information about drugs from the movies, the MSM or what the government tell us. Now it only takes 15 minutes on the web and you will find that most of what we have been told was wrong or grossly exaggerated. This is challenging one of politics most potent weapons - scare campaigns about drugs.

It's only been over the last 5 years or so that many drug myths perpetuated by the government have been publicly debunked. These myths were so heavily promoted in an attempt to appear "Tough on Drugs" that they somehow became "facts". The cannabis gateway theory, crack babies, ecstasy killing a generation, crack/ice being instantly addictive, the ice epidemic, the ecstasy epidemic, the skunk epidemic, the honeypot effect around MSIC etc. - all myths that were debunked by easy access to the internet.

Remember the recent mental health panic concerning cannabis? Remember the articles in the MSM and dire warnings from politicians? Remember the sudden surge from the states to ban drug paraphernalia and increase drug penalties for pot? All because of some picky reporting from the MSM especially the Murdoch press. It took a constant stream of rebuttals from those who bothered to analyse the research and evidence to encourage the public to check for themselves. Now, whenever someone wheels out the old anti-cannabis rhetoric, they are bombarded with facts and links to research that would have not been publicly available a decade ago.

How many times have we heard some swarmy politician slamming another politician for being "Soft on Drugs"? Nearly every single "Soft on Drugs" slur has been on someone who puts forward a rational, evidence based suggestion but without the ability to easily check facts, scary sound bites about evil drug dealers targeting your children catch the public's attention. 

Luckily, we can now just google any new proposal and decide for ourselves rather than rely on politically motivated spin or the usual drug hysteria that makes great headlines in the MSM. We just have to look to the US, where the "War on Drugs" was causing so much carnage but was never fully challenged due to constant lies and propaganda from the DEA and other anti-drug groups. Most of the media were hesitant to criticise the "War on Drugs" but the internet changed all that. Now, the "War on Drugs" is targeted regularly and the government has made more positive changes than ever before in it's history. In fact, the whole world is rapidly embracing harm minimisation as the public become more aware of the facts instead of the BS fed to us in a closed information environment. 

No wonder the government wants an internet filter.

I love the internet. And The Australian Heroin Diaries wouldn’t exist without it. I especially love the way you can provide links to real information to debunk the lies and exaggerations we so often see.  Being able to discredit misinformation and political posturing gives us a unique power reminiscent of what Don Dunstan once said - to keep the bastards honest. Well, that’s the theory anyway. 

What surprises me most though, is that many of the usual suspects haven’t caught on that facts can be checked in a few minutes with a quick google. Only recently, the WA premier, Colin Barnett was shooting his mouth off with scary lies about the dangers of cannabis and why WA had to toughen up their drug laws. The comments section of the PerthNow website was inundated with posts challenging Barnetts’ silly claims and the fact checking power of the internet was on display for all to see. 

Most politicians are sleazy and will say anything to try and win over voters but what is the media’s excuse? It seems contradictory that on one hand, they take full advantage of the whiz-bang features that a digital world offers them but then on the other hand, they overlook the easy access to factual information that may not coincide with their own reporting. News Ltd. anyone?

My distaste for anything Murdoch is no secret. Not only have they systematically lowered the standards of journalism around the world but their lack of ethics and agenda driven reporting continue to influence an ignorant public with misinformation, sensationalism and modern conservative ideology. And in what seems like a surreal joke, Murdoch has decided that we should pay to read what he calls, quality journalism. He argues that “quality journalism” is worth paying for and just like buying a newspaper, there should be a charge to read their garble. This will probably come as no surprise but The Guardian in the UK reports that News Ltd’s, The Times has lost almost 90% of online readership after just three weeks of subscription only access. It seems, most people do not want to pay for News Ltd’s “quality journalism” after all. Will Australians pay to read The Daily Telegraph or The CourierMail online? What about The Adelaide Advertiser or The Herald-Sun? It probably depends on how much “quality journalism” there is.

My response in the The Drum article included a dig at the proposed censorship bill called the internet filter. It is the single biggest political issue facing us today. No matter how wonderful the new media is and how much it cuts through the bullshit forced on us, it is pointless if we can’t access it. The internet censorship filter is designed to take away our access to information. Information that can’t be controlled or filtered by those with power. What Senator Conroy and the Labor government don’t understand is that it’s so obvious to the public what they are up to. Just like in 2006 when John Howard changed the media ownership laws and allowed his political ally, Rupert Murdoch to control a countrywide media conglomerate. Only this time, we have all had a taste of what the internet can provide and giving up our open access to it is just not going to happen.

One of the topics flagged for being banned via the proposed internet filter is information on how to use drugs. Ironically, the government itself already supplies funding to NGOs that publish information that help users prepare their drugs for injection. There are plenty of websites and brochures that explain how to get around the protection mechanisms of opiate based pharmaceuticals, giving a step by step guide on how to extract the goodies from specially sealed pills. There are also guides on how to safely inject heroin/speed/cocaine etc. including addresses for where to obtain free syringes. Under the rules of the proposed internet filter, these websites will disappear. It just means that those seeking this information will either view these websites hosted overseas, loose an arm or die. Is this really helping anyone? Who is the target for limiting information on drugs? Kids maybe? Recreational users? Isn’t this even more of a reason not to ban these sites?

To sum up, the internet has given us access to information that scares the government. For the first time, the public doesn’t have to be limited to information that corporations and governments dictate to us. We are free to check facts, choose alternatives or switch off altogether. The argument that certain topics are taboo already and we can’t access them now is simply because we have no say in the matter. Our government censors whatever they want and we are left to argue with a faceless bureaucracy, always with no success. When 95% of Australians disagree with the internet filter, experts keep proving it won’t work and a 15 year old kid can hack it in 30 minutes but the government still refuses to budge, what chance did we have before the internet? The actions of Senator Conroy are a perfect illustration that the government will apply any censorship they want and no amount of logic or public pressure will influence their decision. In other words, we do not want the current censor board’s decisions on what’s restricted so using that as an argument is pointless. We must decide for ourselves what we and our families view according to our own set of standards. Why should we allow the government to decide what we, as adults can or cannot view? Especially when they have such a dreadful record.

Are We Really That Dumb?

Is the "War on Drugs" about to breath it’s last breath? Maybe you have noticed the increasing number of editorials on why the "War on Drugs" has failed and the growing opinion that drug policies around the world are just not doing what they promised. Every day now there are editorials damning global drug policies and this would have seemed radical only a few years ago. And they are appearing in well respected and popular media outlets, not just the usual lefty publications. The Australian published the article, New Thinking Needed For War On Drugs just a few weeks ago.

Apart from editorials and opinion pieces, the general news also highlights the failure of how we deal with the drug issue. I argue that if it were any other issue there would be enough bad press to wreak havoc on a government who makes these policies. How many news items have to be printed to get the government into gear and start taking notice of the carnage caused by their own decisions? Are we really that stupid, that we continue with such tragic policies that have never once succeeded?

Just last month, an $84 million cocaine haul was reported in Australia. $84 million dollars worth of cocaine is a lot of drugs in anyone’s terms but surprisingly it was only the 5th largest cocaine haul in our history. Most people I quizzed about it were not even aware of this bust or were blasé about it. With possible connections to Mexican drug lords and other international players, an $84 million dollar cocaine haul should be big news but the story is simply lost in the multitude of drug related crimes. This should be ramming home the message that illicit drug supply is unlimited and no amount of policing will make any difference in the long run. But no, we repeat the same old, failed strategy. Some leaders even use our unsuccessful drug policy as a reason to vote for them. What’s up with that?

So why do we continue to spend billions of dollars trying to stop the unstoppable? Why hasn’t the opposition, the police or the media declared this strategy a failure and a waste of tax payer’s money? Incredibly, the Australian Federal Police admit that less than 10-15% of all illicit drugs imported into Australia are seized. That means, for each billion dollars worth we stop each year, 10 times that amount or $10 billion dollars worth evades our border security and makes it’s way onto the street. But, have you ever heard the Australian Federal Police or incumbent government declare anything but success?

And, what is success? How do the police and the government measure their success when tackling illicit drugs? Is their definition of success the same as those who work in drug and alcohol treatment? Last month, an article in the West Australian declared, WA Ecstasy Is Cocktail Of Chemicals. In other words, the bulk of ecstasy no longer consists of a relatively safe drug like MDMA but instead is filled with all sorts of dangerous chemicals and fillers. The police were very concerned about these new ingredients citing side effects such as paranoia, schizophrenia, diarrhoea, vomiting, headaches and even death. Ironically, this is what they said about MDMA not too long ago. 

The global crackdown on MDMA and it’s precursors has been hailed a success by law enforcement groups around the world but the reality of their strategy is anything but “successful”. Out of the 60 plus deaths in Australia from ecstasy since 2002, only 1 in 10 is directly a result of MDMA. The bulk of deaths were from the filler products in the pills that were sold off as MDMA. Did the police and the government know that MDMA was not as dangerous as the filler products could be? 

Mixed in with the usual, ultra hyped up stories about the ecstasy scourge are dozens of scientifically sound articles debunking the hysteria surrounding MDMA. Did they overlook that famous television documentary, Ecstasy Rising or the David Nutt scandal where the head of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) said that taking ecstasy was as safe as riding a horse? 

The media regularly exposes the dangerous contaminants in street drugs. Even cocaine doesn’t escape the reports of being cut with animal de-worming agents or dental anaesthetic. But one often overlooked problem is the current state of methamphetamines. The decision to crack down on precursors created the need for backyard drug labs to buy cold and flu tablets containing the active ingredient, pseudoephedrine. This in turn, lead to another crack down on cold and flu tablets and forced consumers to buy inferior products with an alternative active ingredient. If you want real medication with pseudoephedrine, it is now at the discretion of your pharmacist who will require your name and address which can be accessed by the Australian Federal Police. But this is a trivial matter compared to the new ice/meth hitting the streets. This new, heavily refined drug is commonly known as “shards” and according to street talk, magnifies the worst aspects of meth. Users are now faced with a harsher, more dangerous drug courtesy of our drug laws.  

You may be excused for thinking that most newspaper articles about drugs are biased towards punitive action. It probably goes a long way to explaining why so many politicians play the "Tough on Drugs" card so readily. But there’s an inherent problem with this - they accept trash media reports more readier than articles from the science community. The same goes for the general public. For example, why would anyone oppose safe injecting clinics when every article that supports them, is based on evidence and research? Why would the opinion of rabid right wingers be more important than the scientific findings? The public have a right to be stupid but politicians don’t. They are obliged to act on facts and evidence. 

I sometimes wonder how many people actually grasp the situation in Mexico at the moment? Has it really sunk in that the sale of easily produced products like cocaine, heroin and cannabis has managed to create organisations more powerful than some countries? How about the situation in the US where drug gangs fight it out with DEA agents in the streets using military weapons usually reserved for wars? These are the daily reminders that should have politicians and the police questioning our current strategies in the fight against drugs. Are they that dumb to think it will be different here in Australia? Even our TV entertainment reflects the carnage caused by ignorant policies. Yes, I’m talking about Underbelly, a show that exposes the deep relationship between drugs and police corruption, organised crime and copious levels of violence. There’s no escaping the damage caused by the outdated, misguided "War on Drugs".

Here is a snapshot of articles that maybe our decision makers should be reading:

---

We Will Never Win War On Drugs - The Sun (Scotland)

How Legalized Pot Could Hurt Mexico's Cartels - Newsweek

Drug Sentences Create Racial Caste System - Miami Herald

'Cocaine Nation' A Case For Legalization - NPR

Former Presidents Denounce Drug War Ahead of AIDS Meet - Inter Press Service

Drug Users Must Be Decriminalized Along With Scale-Up Of Combination Treatment - PhysOrg

'Decriminalise Personal Drug Use', Suggests Chairman Of The Bar Council - The Telegraph

Drug Control Policy Director Talks Prevention - NPR

Experts Urge Reform Of Global Drug Policy - The Associated Press

Marijuana Should Be Taxed And Regulated - Canada.com

Medical Matters : Debate Over Heroin Prescription Needs To Reopen - Irish Times

Feature: Drug War a Devastating Failure, Scientists and Researchers Say - DrugWar Chronicle

Ecstasy May Ease PTSD Symptoms - WebMD

On The Street, You Can See The Harm Caused By Drug Laws - Ottawa Citizen

Parents: End The War On Drugs – For Your Kids - California Progress Report

---

The "War on Drugs" is a colossal failure and supporting it blindly should no longer be tolerated. Any politician who throws around politically expedient lines about being "Tough on Drugs” needs to explain why. They need to be told it is no longer acceptable in 2010 to ignore the facts that they get presented with on a regular basis. It’s no longer acceptable to overlook the dozens of newspaper articles that are published every week. The evidence is in and it’s reported on everyday. Banging on about “sending the wrong message” or being "Tough on Drugs" just doesn’t cut it anymore. In fact, it is dumb.

Related Articles:
Experts Urge Drug Policy Reform - Is Julia Gillard Ready?
A Message to the Australian Government … End Failed Drug Policies
Decriminalise Drugs - Chairman of the Bar Council (UK)
Brumby Lies About Safe Injection Clinics
So Much for The Government’s "Tough on Drugs" Strategy

Judge Needs a Reality Check

Being caught with 7 ounces of pot and charged with dealing cannabis should not encompass a prison term. Especially if that person has a clean police record. But, Supreme Court judge Justice Kerry Cullinane has deemed Danielle Sharp to be more dangerous than many violent criminals and sentenced her to 2 years jail (released after 4 months). This was her first offence.

I know the public are screaming out for harsher penalties from our judicial system and politicians are quick to take up the the "Tough on Crime” mantra but this decision by judge Kerry Cullinane is simply ridiculous. What positive outcome can possibly come from jailing Danielle Sharp? She has left the drug scene and worked solidly for two years since her arrest which makes me wonder about the judge’s wisdom. Is ripping her out of the community going to teach her a lesson or help society in general. Of course not. Is it going to deter others from selling drugs? Nuh. Are there any benefits at all? again … no.

Here’s the strange part. Justice Kerry Cullinane has been on an anti-drug mission for a long time now but for all his, "Tough on Drugs" rhetoric, he has dished out plenty of suspended sentences for drug offences. Offences that would normally attract jail terms. 

The judge then made it clear that the courts were getting increasingly tougher in drug sentences.

"We are (nowadays) getting away from cases where no conviction is recorded for small amounts of drugs for personal use, and I have to be fair to others who have been sentenced," he said.

[…]

But he accepted Mr Griffith's view that `this was an aberration for a young man of great promise, particularly in soccer'.

Justice Cullinane imposed a 12-month sentence, wholly suspended for two years, but warned Gabiola that if he returned to court facing similar charges, he would go to jail.

--Townsville Bulletin (2008)

So why did Justice Cullinane jail first time offender Danielle Sharp after saying, “he had to be consistent in fairness to others he had sentenced on similar charges”? What made Danielle’s drug offence worthy of a prison term when other similar crimes were previously dealt with by a suspended sentence?

But Justice Cullinane said that while he noted the positive changes Sharp had made, he had to be consistent in fairness to others he had sentenced on similar charges. The weeping Sharp was sentenced to two years' jail, to be released after serving four months.

--From the article

Maybe it was the busy morning he had or as the Townsville Bulletin describes, “his concern at what he terms as 'a disturbing pattern' of drug offending that has started to appear in Townsville over the past few years”.

The 70 year old judge, who hails from North Queensland (Deliverance anyone?) is a member of the Order of Australia (AO). He is well known up north and even has a ‘Moot Court’ named after him at the James Cook University Law School. My worry is that the last 40 years, being his prime years in the law business, has firmly imbedded the “War on Drugs” rhetoric in his mind and any evidence suggesting the "Tough on Drugs" approach has failed, has not sunk in.

According to the Townsville Bulletin, he has commented several times that more and more older people are coming before him as first-time drug offenders. 

The final cautionary word for those tempted by drug dealing should come from Justice Kerry Cullinane. In a recent case, when a barrister suggested that some misguided older people were seeing drug dealing as a kind of superannuation, Justice Cullinane said if that was the case, many people would be spending their retirement in a place they hadn't planned. And anyone so tempted to the drug trade should know that Justice Cullinane is a man of his word.

--Townsville Bulletin

OK, I get it, he’s a judge. It’s his job to apply the law. But it’s also our judges who challenge the law and give determinations that affect future decisions. For example, in an attempt by the Canadian government to shut down the safe injection centre, Insite, Justice Ian Pettfield ruled against them and determined that Insite was saving lives and sections of the Canadian Criminal Code contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This set the stage for the supreme court to overrule a government appeal who may have very well got their way if not for the decision of the first judge. The initial ruling by Justice Ian Pettfield, declaring parts of Canada’s drug laws unconstitutional, shows how informed judges can really make a difference to judicial issues especially those built on ignorance.

I’m not holding my breath for Justice Cullinane to change his attitude any time soon. But with the mountains of research clearly showing that punitive penalties for drug offences has not achieved any positive outcomes, it is disappointing the judge continues his drug war babble. Especially when it sounds like an extract from some anti-drug propaganda piece.

And without people like Gabiola(accused drug user), dealers wouldn't have a business

--Justice Kerry Cullinane

As the old school moves into retirement, I wonder if the drug war rhetoric will continue with the new, up and coming beaks? Will the passing on of wisdom include the 40 years of brainwashing that most of our judiciary suffered?  Or will we see a new breed of pragmatic judges who are prepared to look beyond disastrous campaigns like “Just Say No” or "Tough on Drugs”? For the sake of those already affected by the misguided "War on Drugs" and those still in the firing line, we can only hope that the people who have the power of incarceration will be better informed than their predecessors.

Drug Dealers Sent To Jail

Townsville Bulletin

Roanne Johnson

July 2010

Supreme Court judge Justice Kerry Cullinane has expressed his concern at what he terms as 'a disturbing pattern' of drug offending that has started to appear in Townsville over the past few years.

During a busy morning of sentences yesterday Justice Cullinane commented that two of the matters before him involved young people with no criminal record landing in the dock on the most serious of drug charges, that of trafficking.

Justice Cullinane said the pattern had started to appear in only the past few years.

And the judge made it clear that only the most exceptional of circumstances, like extreme youth, would keep traffickers out of jail.

And he was good to his word, when Danielle Renee Sharp pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis sativa, and four related charges of possessing money and paraphernalia involved in the peddling.

Crown prosecutor Clare Kelsey said police, acting on a tip-off, had discovered various amounts of cannabis, amounting to 191gms, when they searched Sharp's Kelso home.

Officers also seized $1685 in cash and a mobile phone containing text messages relating to drug deals.

Defence barrister Wayne Pennell said Sharp had fallen in with the Townsville drug culture when she took up with a new boyfriend who was drug dependent.

But Mr Pennell said she had broken off the relationship and had turned her life around since she was charged with the offences in 2008.

He said she had worked her way up to become a manager of store in the western suburbs.

Mr Pennell described the 27-year-old Sharp as a 'naive young girl' and argued that her genuine and successful efforts to rehabilitate her life called for a wholly suspended jail term.

But Justice Cullinane said that while he noted the positive changes Sharp had made, he had to be consistent in fairness to others he had sentenced on similar charges.

The weeping Sharp was sentenced to two years' jail, to be released after serving four months.

And jail was also unavoidable for 23-year-old New Zealander Conan Anton Fenton, who pleaded guilty to trafficking in ecstasy and the relatively rare banned euphoric drug, benzylpiperazine, known on the street as BZP.

Crown prosecutor Kelly Stone said Fenton had been caught in an undercover drug squad sting, and was arrested after he had arranged four deals involving $4000 worth of drugs, including 300 ecstasy tablets.

Felton was sentenced to two years, but he will be released after serving eight months.

Bill Clinton Endorses Harm Reduction

Harm Minimisation (Harm Reduction) is the national drug policy for Australia and many other countries. But for the US and the UN, Harm Reduction is a dirty word and purposely omitted from any initiative put forward that recommends using harm reducing strategies. So when an ex-American president defies the US’s Zero Tolerance drug policy and publicly supports Harm Reduction, it signals that change is on the way.

A Message to the Australian Government … End Failed Drug Policies

A message to the Australian government…

The "War on Drugs" is over. Drug prohibition and useless drug laws have failed. The world’s leading experts on health and drug use are now demanding that you stop with your outdated and useless drug policies, and instead, implement scientifically sound and evidence based strategies to deal with the issue of illicit drug use. It’s time to admit, that after 5 decades or more, our punitive drug laws have failed to meet any realistic goals. It’s time to acknowledge what experts have been telling you for years - current drug policies do not solve the problems associated with illicit drugs. It’s time to accept the evidence that is repeatedly presented to you. Now you must act.

The sad truth is, more people die and more harm is caused by current drug policies than drug themselves. The damage to society continues to grow yearly but still no goal has ever been met by law enforcement agencies. Every policy ever put into motion that penalises drug users has backfired leaving our friends and family to clean up the mess. Each new "Tough on Drugs" initiative only increases harm without reducing drug use. The failure of punitive drug laws has been researched, proven and documented dozens of times and clearly shows that the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted so far have not slowed down the drug trade. The evidence is in and the experts and the public want the carnage to stop.

You, the elected government have a duty to do what’s best for Australia. It’s your role to take the advice of experts and implement appropriate policies. It is not your role to make important decisions based on ideology, personal opinions, ignorance or pressure from agenda driven organisations. Please, take note of the Vienna Declaration and act like a responsible government.

About The Vienna Declaration

The Vienna Declaration is a statement seeking to improve community health and safety by calling for the incorporation of scientific evidence into illicit drug policies. We are inviting scientists, health practitioners and the public to endorse this document in order to bring these issues to the attention of governments and international agencies, and to illustrate that drug policy reform is a matter of urgent international significance. We also welcome organizational endorsements. For a brief listing of high profile endorsements to date, please click here.

This is the official declaration of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) to be held in Vienna, Austria from July 18th to 23rd. The declaration was drafted by a team of international experts and initiated by several of the world’s leading HIV and drug policy scientific bodies: the International AIDS Society, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP), and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS. To read the Declaration click here.

The Vienna Declaration

The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.

In response to the health and social harms of illegal drugs, a large international drug prohibition regime has been developed under the umbrella of the United Nations.1 Decades of research provide a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the global “War on Drugs” and, as thousands of individuals gather in Vienna at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, the international scientific community calls for an acknowledgement of the limits and harms of drug prohibition, and for drug policy reform to remove barriers to effective HIV prevention, treatment and care.

The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the availability of illegal drugs, in communities where there is demand, is now unambiguous.2, 3Over the last several decades, national and international drug surveillance systems have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity—despite massive investments in drug law enforcement.3,4

Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law enforcement meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.5 The data also clearly demonstrate that the number of countries in which people inject illegal drugs is growing, with women and children becoming increasingly affected.6 Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, injection drug use accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV.7, 8 In some areas where HIV is spreading most rapidly, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, HIV prevalence can be as high as 70% among people who inject drugs, and in some areas more than 80% of all HIV cases are among this group.8 

In the context of overwhelming evidence that drug law enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives, it is important that its harmful consequences be acknowledged and addressed. These consequences include but are not limited to:

• HIV epidemics fuelled by the criminalisation of people who use illicit drugs and by prohibitions on the provision of sterile needles and opioid substitution treatment.9, 10
• HIV outbreaks among incarcerated and institutionalised drug users as a result of punitive laws and policies and a lack of HIV prevention services in these settings.11-13
• The undermining of public health systems when law enforcement drives drug users away from prevention and care services and into environments where the risk of infectious disease transmission (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C & B, and tuberculosis) and other harms is increased.14-16
• A crisis in criminal justice systems as a result of record incarceration rates in a number of nations.17, 18 This has negatively affected the social functioning of entire communities. While racial disparities in incarceration rates for drug offences are evident in countries all over the world, the impact has been particularly severe in the US, where approximately one in nine African-American males in the age group 20 to 34 is incarcerated on any given day, primarily as a result of drug law enforcement.19
• Stigma towards people who use illicit drugs, which reinforces the political popularity of criminalising drug users and undermines HIV prevention and other health promotion efforts.20, 21
• Severe human rights violations, including torture, forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment, and execution of drug offenders in a number of countries.22, 23
• A massive illicit market worth an estimated annual value of US$320 billion.4 These profits remain entirely outside the control of government. They fuel crime, violence and corruption in countless urban communities and have destabilised entire countries, such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.4
• Billions of tax dollars wasted on a “War on Drugs” approach to drug control that does not achieve its stated objectives and, instead, directly or indirectly contributes to the above harms.24

Unfortunately, evidence of the failure of drug prohibition to achieve its stated goals, as well as the severe negative consequences of these policies, is often denied by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.25This has created confusion among the public and has cost countless lives. Governments and international organisations have ethical and legal obligations to respond to this crisis and must seek to enact alternative evidence-based strategies that can effectively reduce the harms of drugs without creating harms of their own. We, the undersigned, call on governments and international organisations, including the United Nations, to:

• Undertake a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies.
• Implement and evaluate a science-based public health approach to address the individual and community harms stemming from illicit drug use.
• Decriminalise drug users, scale up evidence-based drug dependence treatment options and abolish ineffective compulsory drug treatment centres that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.26
• Unequivocally endorse and scale up funding for the implementation of the comprehensive package of HIV interventions spelled out in the WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS Target Setting Guide.27
• Meaningfully involve members of the affected community in developing, monitoring and implementing services and policies that affect their lives.

We further call upon the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, to urgently implement measures to ensure that the United Nations system—including the International Narcotics Control Board—speaks with one voice to support the decriminalisation of drug users and the implementation of evidence-based approaches to drug control.28

Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.


Sign the declaration here