Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Has Paul Sheehan Written the Worst Article Ever?

We would all be better off without those
 pinko, poofter, druggy mongrels!
I have just read, what could be considered by some, the worse article ever written.

I knew something was adrift when the author, Paul Sheehan started slamming the movie, Animal Kingdom. I thought this would be his kind of movie, you know with cops killing crims, and all but it seems, Sheehan loves The King’s Speech instead. Another magnificent film, all the same.

We all know Sheehan is anti-labor and a raving right-wing apologist and his article was written as expected. But it was his attack on the Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) that left me cold. Sheehan, like most crazy ultra conservatives hates junkies. According to him, they are the “most reckless and self-indulgent people in society” and MSIC just allows them to “experiment” with high doses of heroin because MSIC staff will revive them if they overdose.

If you feel like you’ve heard this before, you are right. Anti-drug superhero and Drug Free Australia (DFA) secretary, Gary Christian has spent over four years pushing this theory and even produced a paper on the subject titled A Case for Closure. Sadly for Gary, only nuttters like Sheehan take it seriously while actual experts and professionals simply ignore it. It’s also interesting to note that Sheehan’s detailed research couldn’t even produce the correct spelling for Gary Christian’s name.

Not surprisingly, Gary Christian couldn’t subdue his excitement and posted a quote from the article to the the ADCA email forum. And equally not surprising, his post was instantly rejected by some respected ADCA email forum subscribers. In case you didn’t know, the ADCA email forum is the official bulletin board for AOD professionals, hosted by The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia(ADCA).

Start by telling the truth not lying. The funds for the MSIC do NOT come from the public - they come from proceeds of crime.

Sheehan's article fed by Christian is the worst piece of mistruth and claptrap I have ever seen. He manages to out-do Ackerman, Bolt and Devine.

That is saying something.

I support the injecting room - so do the majority of the family members that I talk to.

Whether Sheehan was simply writing about his favourite subject, the Labor Party or spewing out his hate for drug addicts is unclear. Like Piers Akerman from the Daily Telegraph, Sheehan’s main focus is slamming the Labor Party, especially the NSW branch. And like Piers Akerhead, there is an assumption that colourful writing and repeating the same old criticism over and over will magically persuade the readers that they have a valid point.

In the Cross, the core of the rot is sponsored by the NSW government itself. It is the blandly named Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, conveniently located on Darlinghurst Road opposite the entrance to Kings Cross railway station. Never have so many lies been fed to the public in support of this policy quagmire.
--Paul Sheehan: A state's addiction to crime(Sydney Morning Herald)

What is clear though, is that Sheehan has swallowed the Drug Free Australia (DFA) bait … hook, line and sinker.

One of the leading figures behind Drug Free Australia, Gary Christiansen, told me: ''The number of overdoses in the [Kings Cross] facility have been a staggering 35 to 42 times higher than the rate of overdose experienced by clients [drug-users] before they registered to use the room. Testimony by former clients in the NSW Hansard indicates that the overdose numbers are so high because clients experiment with higher doses of heroin and poly-drug cocktails, using the safety of the room as a guarantee.''

I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but where do we draw the line? I suggest that popular media outlets should be forced to not publish material that blatantly deceives the audience. In other words, they can not lie, regardless of whether it’s an opinion piece or not. You would think that after Miranda Devine’s reign of terror on rational thinking, the Sydney Morning Herald would be keen to rid themselves of extreme, right wing rantings. Especially when a writer ignores the bulk of scientific evidence and instead relies on the rejected research and ramblings of an infamous anti-drug zealot.

The argument justifying the centre is that has cleaned up the drug trade and saved ''hundreds'' of lives. This is propaganda worthy of North Korea. The reality is the opposite. The centre is directly responsible for hundreds of drug overdoses. It has created an environment where the most reckless and self-indulgent people in society - junkies - know they will be bailed out of their own risks.

The result is stratospheric rates of drug overdoses and interventions, which are then counted as lives saved. This is the basis on which more than $25 million in public funding has been requested and justified by the drug-legalisation lobby. Anyone interested in the non-North Korean view of this social experiment can find a blistering, highly detailed counter-view on the website of Drug Free Australia.
--Paul Sheehan: A state's addiction to crime(Sydney Morning Herald)

North Korea? Social experiment? $25 million in public funding? Colourful … yes. Correct … no. As Tony Trimingham pointed out, MSIC is funded from proceeds of crime not by the tax payer. And why is saving hundreds of lives called propaganda? Instead of using the actual data collected by MSIC, Gary Christian starts with some highly contentious and indeterminable assumptions then multiplies them out over eight years to get an even more unreliable result. This is the basis for his argument - that statistically MSIC has only saved 4 lives - to challenge Australia’s leading researchers and experts. It’s been pointed out many times previously to Christian that multiplying uncertainties will just magnify any error and produce highly dubious results. What about those junkies who Sheehan describes as the “most reckless and self-indulgent people in society”? They’re not to be trusted in one paragraph but by the next, their testimony is suddenly worthy enough for Sheehan to include in his article. Hypocrisy at it’s best. But no right wing slur on harm minimisation is complete without the mandatory mention of being a “social experiment”. Yes, according to Sheehan, anything that doesn’t rely on tough law enforcement or considers the best interests of drug users, is a social experiment or even worse, morally wrong.

The association is merely part of a state-funded, ideologically driven lobby that seeks to legalise hard drugs, portray criminals as victims and deny the reality that the heroin subculture is fundamentally parasitic, cynical and self-absorbed

Apart from despising drug users, Paul Sheehan also dislikes science and research when they don’t fit in with his ideology. He is probably not the best choice then when it comes to writing about scientific issues. You might remember not too long ago that Sheehan was proclaiming the wonders of a magical water source that cured rheumatoid arthritis and other major illnesses. He even provided an address to a warehouse where people could go and buy it. As it turns out, the mystical water was … well, just water. Add to the list, climate change denial, his claim that millions have lost their lives as a result of stopping the use of DDT and his rejection of evidence from drug experts, and you have someone who should steer clear of scientific and medical topics. Then again, this might explain why Sheehan was so drawn to Gary Christian and his reliance on junk science.

The idea that most intravenous drug users are prepared to suffer an overdose because someone is available to revive them, is ludicrous. This furphy was never even a consideration until Christian’s report. There may be a small group who take advantage of having qualified nurses on hand, armed with naloxone but they certainly don’t represent the average MSIC client. Even by Gary Christian’s standards, this leap in logic is absurd. How can only two users making the claim, out of thousands actually support the assumptions by Christian and Sheehan? Maybe someone should tell them that simply writing it in a report is not science and doesn’t make it true.


A State's Addiction To Crime
Paul Sheehan
February 2011

One of the pleasures in public life today will be the Oscars, streamed live from Los Angeles at absurdly self-indulgent length. Local interest is provided by a strong Australian contingent for honours, including best picture (The King's Speech) co-produced in Australia, starring a brilliant Australian actor (Geoffrey Rush) playing an intimate to King George VI, with another brilliant Australian actor (Guy Pearce), playing another British monarch, King Edward VIII. Ironies abound.

The sentimental favourite among the Aussie nominees is Jacki Weaver, who plays a sweetly murderous grandmother in Animal Kingdom, a superbly crafted Australian drama (with Guy Pearce again) by first-time feature director David Michod. The film, which Michod also wrote, and Weaver in particular have received so many award nominations and critical acclaim that it is easy to overlook that the film has a hole in its heart.

The hole in the heart of Animal Kingdom is its script, where the drama is created by violence, not by depth or originality of the characters. It is same hole in the heart of Australian cinema generally, where the local production line of world-class actors, directors and cinematographers has never been matched by a comparable stream of world-class scripts.

This reflects the Australian film world, like the tax-subsidised Australian arts world in general, being a preachy monoculture that conforms to the safety of well-worn ruts. Animal Kingdom is no exception. The opening scene is a normal-looking suburban mother slumped on a couch. These are the first lines of dialogue:

Paramedic: ''What's she taken?''

Young man: ''Heroin.''

For the umpteenth time, an Australian film has trawled the criminal underclass for colour while portraying elements of the police as murderers with no honour code, unlike the crims they chase.

As it happens, I've been thinking a great deal about the way NSW has taken on some of the flavour of a police state. The context is the run-up to the state election. I'm wondering what the Coalition will do about the police after it wins office on March 26. In NSW, we have the worst of both worlds, where the cops and the government are tough on hundreds of thousands of non-criminals going about their daily lives, while giving a free pass to real criminals.

This dysfunction is exemplified in Kings Cross, where the NSW government is complicit in the heroin trade while, as a result of this complicity, the police have all but given up arresting junkies in the Cross.

Darlinghurst Road has become entrenched as a place where drug and alcohol abuse flourishes. Meanwhile, just down the hill, on busy New South Head Road, the police stop thousands of motorists who are causing no problems. At this checkpoint, the presumption is guilt, the selection process is random, and the probable cause is non-existent.

Checkpoints, random stops, speed cameras and speed traps. This is the real face of the NSW Police. The force has been turned into petty bureaucrats charged with gouging revenue from taxpayers, while looking the other way as the heroin traffic flourishes in plain sight. Our legal system and state bureaucracy have turned the thin blue line into a bleached corps of tax agents, social workers, stress-leave jockeys and second-job jugglers, leaving a few hard units to do hard investigations into hard crime.

Look at Kings Cross. It used to be one of Australia's most sophisticated, cosmopolitan and pleasant precincts. Now it is a bogan paradise, a cathedral to bad taste, a product of the power of the alcohol, heroin and poker machine industries that have enjoyed unprecedented power or tolerance for 16 years under the Labor patronage machine and pork factory.

In the Cross, the core of the rot is sponsored by the NSW government itself. It is the blandly named Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, conveniently located on Darlinghurst Road opposite the entrance to Kings Cross railway station. Never have so many lies been fed to the public in support of this policy quagmire.

The argument justifying the centre is that has cleaned up the drug trade and saved ''hundreds'' of lives. This is propaganda worthy of North Korea. The reality is the opposite. The centre is directly responsible for hundreds of drug overdoses. It has created an environment where the most reckless and self-indulgent people in society - junkies - know they will be bailed out of their own risks.

The result is stratospheric rates of drug overdoses and interventions, which are then counted as lives saved. This is the basis on which more than $25 million in public funding has been requested and justified by the drug-legalisation lobby. Anyone interested in the non-North Korean view of this social experiment can find a blistering, highly detailed counter-view on the website of Drug Free Australia (www.drugfree.org.au).

One of the leading figures behind Drug Free Australia, Gary Christiansen, told me: ''The number of overdoses in the [Kings Cross] facility have been a staggering 35 to 42 times higher than the rate of overdose experienced by clients [drug-users] before they registered to use the room. Testimony by former clients in the NSW Hansard indicates that the overdose numbers are so high because clients experiment with higher doses of heroin and poly-drug cocktails, using the safety of the room as a guarantee.''

As for the wider matter of dysfunctional policing, the opposition has announced that it finds the use of speed traps to be overbearing, deceptive and intrusive. Yesterday it announced it would review the entire process if elected to government. This is encouraging.

Another telling benchmark will come after March 26, when the new government decides what to do about the tax-funded heroin honeypot in the heart of Sydney.


Related Articles:

5 comments:
Labels , , , , , ,

Saturday, 26 February 2011

SA Gov. Hates Pain Sufferers

Image by Gabriel Manga
The organisation, Dignity for Chronic Pain Sufferers needs your help. Please go to their website and sign their partition.

Why?

Read on.

Painkiller Regulations Leave Some In Agony
Elisa Black
February 2011


DOCTORS can't tell her what is wrong because there's no name for the disease she has.

For the past 20 years Trish Betros has tried to live while her bones slowly disintegrate.

She has endured more than 60 operations, none of which have offered a cure, but all were done in an attempt to keep her joints mobile, to keep her on her feet.

She has had two knee replacements. And then had to have them replaced when her body turned the tissue behind them to mush.

Bony spurs in her shoulders mean she can't lift her arms high enough to shrug on a jumper or hang out the washing. There has been an amputation. But more than anything, there is the pain. Unrelenting, it moves from a dull ache to a stab, through her body every minute of every day.

It destroyed her career as a doctor, forced her two sons to grow up quickly as they helped to care for her, put untold strain on her marriage.

And Trish says the only thing that helps her pain is about to be taken away. First prescribed strong opioid medication in 2003 by pain specialist Dr Ian Buttfield, Trish was able to regain much of her former life.

She returned to uni, took up sport, lived her life. But in 2007, the regulation of prescriptions for these types of drugs was transferred from the SA Health Commission to the Drugs of Dependence Unit within Drug and Alcohol Services SA.

Dr Buttfield, foundation chairman of the International Association of Pain and Chemical Dependency, said all drug use, whether in pursuit of quality of life through pain relief or for drug abuse, was being treated the same by DASSA.

"When you put the control in the hands of drug and alcohol authorities, they are going to treat everyone like drug and alcohol addicts, none of them know anything about the management of pain," he said.

And a recent review by DASSA means Trish's medication will be cut by about 60 per cent, even though a past decision to reduce her medication had already left her virtually housebound.

DASSA clinical director Dr Robert Ali has defended the current system.

"Around 7500 people in South Australia are prescribed opiates for the treatment of pain in any 12-month period and in most cases no deviation from the schedule requested by the doctor is made," he said.

"As soon as you are receiving opiates on a daily basis for weeks to months there are changes that are occurring in your brain chemistry and physical dependence is a by-product.

"Not everyone goes on to have an addiction but what we have, which is unique in this state is a close association whereby people who develop an addiction are able to be treated."

It is this association that Trish's husband, Greg Betros, is seeking to fight.

The chairman of Dignity for Chronic Pain Sufferers will head to court on February 25 to seek leave for a judicial review into the decision against his wife.

Mr Betros said he hoped a review would pave the way for an overhaul of the system and would benefit the more than 100 members of the group.

"You get to the point where these people say we're going to be better off dead than living with this pain," he said.

"My wife's world is literally her bedroom. We just want these people to live their lives with dignity."





And this from 2009

Agony of The Chronically Ill 'Ignored'
NIGEL HUNT 
April 2009

SOUTH Australians suffering chronic pain are being forced interstate to obtain adequate doses of narcotics because of changes to government policy.

Some are sourcing drugs such as morphine and pethidine on the streets because authorities will not prescribe enough to relieve their pain.

The drastic scenarios have been revealed as a group of almost 100 people suffering severe pain, known as Dignity For Chronic Pain Sufferers, continues its campaign to have government policy reversed.

The group is lobbying Opposition and independent MPs to hold a parliamentary inquiry into the policy change, which has impacted up to 500 people.

Dignity For Pain Sufferers chairman Greg Betros said the situation had deteriorated considerably over the past few months while calls for help had been ignored.

Mr Betros met Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister Jane Lomax-Smith in December last year and says he was assured the situation would be addressed.

"Nothing has happened since, despite assurances from bureaucrats that people are receiving their appropriate pain relief doses, but this is simply not the case," he said.

"We are now in the situation whereby people are either obtaining the relief they need interstate or sourcing it on the streets in Adelaide because they have no other option to continue to function."

As it now stands, a person suffering chronic pain can only be prescribed narcotic medication for a period of two months before the prescribing doctor must apply to the Drugs of Dependence Unit within Drug and Alcohol Services SA for a permit to continue prescribing.

Until 18 months ago, the regulating authority was located in the SA Health Commission, under Health Minister John Hill. The system appeared to be working well, balancing the need for pain relief for sufferers against the potential for drug abuse. However, in late 2007 the government decided to transfer the DDU to DASSA, which is under Dr Lomax-Smith's control.

The pain sufferers now argue that regulators with no experience in pain management are running the system in a manner dedicated to curbing drug addiction - to the detriment of patients with unrelated health issues.

"They say pain patients are now being controlled with mechanisms suitable for drug addicts - including sending pain patients to drug addiction centre Waranilla at Norwood - thus denying them their right to seek the doctor of their choice for pain management," Mr Betros said.

"They argue such treatment is in breach of international treaties on human rights. There is no right of appeal against the decisions. As a direct result of the changes, it has become very difficult for those in need of pain medication to obtain adequate relief. At present, the bureaucrats have assigned a notional maximum dose, while current research and clinical evidence demonstrates the dose to be prescribed is the one that relieves the pain.

"The result of the restrictions means there are a number of severely ill patients who are unable to obtain pain relief, even though they are given standard doses."

Dignity For Chronic Pain Sufferers secretary George Seabrook, whose wife Judy is one of those now receiving insufficient pain relief, said dozens of people were suffering.

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

DASSA director Dr Robert Ali disputed the claims the shift in policy had resulted in pain patients receiving a lesser level of individual care.

"The realignment of the Drugs of Dependence branch to where it is located has not influenced clinical management," he said.

He said moving the pain patients to DASSA was "not anything other than a review and an attempt to ensure these patients received appropriate treatment in keeping with their interests and based upon best available evidence".

Dr Ali said he was aware there were people who were unhappy at the change to their circumstances and "had found it distressing they were not receiving the same approach they previously received".

"I also understand it is very difficult to have that distance and objectivity about what is in people's best interests when they feel the previous treatment was working," he said.

Dr Ali said he was confident any changes to a patient's medication dose was being made in their best interests.


The SA government is a disgrace. And Ex. Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister Jane Lomax-Smith should be made to publicly apologise to the people whose lives she has wrecked. Her decision to move chronic pain patients to under the umbrella of the Drug and Alcohol Services was wrong and no amount of spin will change that. Her clumsy attempts to justify her decision has simply tarnished her reputation even more. 

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said chronic pain sufferers’ “issues have been referred to Drug and Alcohol Services SA because experts should decide on medication regimes, not politicians”.
--Former Mental Health and Substance Abuse Minister, Jane Lomax-Smith

Thanks Jane. Who would have ever thought that politicians would override experts and interfere with “medication regimes” or drug related issues? It’s great to see though, that Jane makes it clear where she stands on social justice issues in politics.

Jane has always been a strong advocate for social justice and sustainable development and believes that these policies are important personal principles, not just about politics.

It might surprise you to know that Jane Lomax-Smith was a doctor when she made the decision to breach the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes

Now Jane is the interim Director of the Royal Institution of Australia. And here’s the irony. According to Wikipedia, The Royal Institution of Australia is a not-for-profit government-supported organisation to support public engagement with science.

As for DASSA director Dr Robert Ali, he has no excuse. Dr. Ali has a history of supporting evidence based policies including controversial issues ilke prescription heroin for long term addicts. He also supports the AFL’s drug policy and cautions against naltrexone implants. All good causes involving pragmatic, evidence based outcomes. 

He said moving the pain patients to DASSA was "not anything other than a review and an attempt to ensure these patients received appropriate treatment in keeping with their interests and based upon best available evidence".

Simply shrugging off the real suffering of chronic pain patients because their new treatment is ‘based upon best available evidence’ is unbecoming of Dr. Ali. He knows that every person has unique needs and suggesting that the risk of opioid dependance is more important than quelling unbearable pain, is wrong on so many levels. Maybe he is just trying to defend his position as DASSA director or the reputation of Drug and Alcohol Services SA? Either way Dr. Ali’s reasoning overlooks one vital point. The previous treatment was working and now’s it’s not. Saying that the new procedures are ‘in their best interests’ is just condescending and ignorant to their suffering. 

I also understand it is very difficult to have that distance and objectivity about what is in people's best interests when they feel the previous treatment was working
--DASSA director Dr Robert Ali

At the core of the issue is that DASSA’s doctors specialise in addiction and have different guidelines that focus on drug abuse. Technically, once a pain patient admits they suffer withdrawals when their medication is reduced, they are classified as addicts aka junkies. This means that the only opiates allowed to be prescribed under DASSA guidelines are methadone and buprenorphine. Both drugs are for treating heroin addiction and not particularly good for pain relief.

As soon as you are receiving opiates on a daily basis for weeks to months there are changes that are occurring in your brain chemistry and physical dependence is a by-product. Not everyone goes on to have an addiction but what we have, which is unique in this state is a close association whereby people who develop an addiction are able to be treated
--DASSA director Dr Robert Ali

Considering that chronic pain can be so deliberating and life changing, the risk of becoming drug dependant is a small price to pay. Also, the physical condition of those who need powerful opioid analgesics, is often deteriorating or even terminal. Being addicted to the drugs that allow them some quality of life is not going to greatly affect their future. Where’s the justification for a decision that confines people to bed when previously, with adequate medication, they were mobile, productive and able to participate in normal family events. Drug dependancy might be serious but tens of millions of people live with it everyday. The difference is that they don’t usually suffer agonising pain.

The real complaint here is that limits have been placed on dosage levels. What dose can be prescribed for opioid based pain medication is now restricted to some arbitrary figure, regardless of the patients pain levels. Interesting, there is no such limit on methadone to treat addiction. I have experienced this first hand - my doctor once told me that I could not increase my morphine dose but if I was on methadone, he could prescribe whatever I wanted.

Regardless of the arguments, morphine and other opioids have been cited by The World Health Organisation as essential in the treatment of severe pain. What dose is prescribed is irrelevant except that it treats that pain. In most situations, dosage is carefully monitored and controlled but to think that someone determines an upper limit for all situations, including those extreme but isolated cases, is just ridiculous. 

Once again, drug hysteria has reared it’s ugly head and the fallout this time are those who suffer chronic pain. With the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) currently under attack for recklessly restricting pain medication to hundreds of millions of people worldwide and their attempts to stop high doses of opiates for pain relief, it seems ironic that South Australia is so closely following suit. The argument from DASSA director, Dr. Robert Ali - reducing the risk of addiction is more important than providing relief for the chronic suffering of pain patients - is typical of the blanket approach that SA has implemented under the hysterical Rann government. And the excuse that moving pain management to under the control of DASSA is important in case a chronic pain sufferer becomes drug dependant, is ludicrous. I’m sure drug dependancy is the last thing on someone’s mind when suicide becomes a daily consideration for those in agonising pain. Then again, for bureaucrats, politicians and government appointed researchers, chronic pain is just a series of words on a page but being labelled “Soft on Drugs" is a potential loss of employment or worse, voters. Now we know which is more important!





Related Links


8 comments:
Labels , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 24 February 2011

Diary: Injustice, Hillary Clinton and Getting Ripped Off!

Trust Me!!!
Ripped Off!
Although I might vigorously fight against the junkie image portrayed by the media and an ignorant public, I am realistic enough to accept that many druggies are still dirtbags. Many addicts are desperate and will take advantage of a situation that most people would not. But I need to emphasise that without their addiction, they may well act like any other person off the street. The fact is that there’s no hell on earth that offers as much excruciating pain and sheer terror as heroin or opiate withdrawals. Trying to avoid this agony will drive most junkies to do something they don’t want to.

So, why did I trust some unknown druggy with $150 to score for me? Knowing how desperate some druggies are should have kept me from putting too much trust into someone I didn’t know, especially when it comes to money. So, of course I got ripped off and now have nothing to show for it. Yes, I’m an idiot and yes, I should have gone with him and yes, I should have checked his mobile phone number wasn’t disconnected and yes, I should have written down his car rego and yes, I should have held something of value until he returned and yes… blah blah blah.

I’m writing this because I’m so pissed off for not taking the time to careful. I can live with the loss of $150 but it’s embarrassing that I acted so desperately when I saw a chance to finally score some speed. He has obviously done this before and must have thought he was dreaming when some stranger asked him if he could score. Just imagine what he thought when I offered him $50 just to do it! 

But the most annoying aspect of all this is hindsight. Like those inconsistencies that become apparent after the fact. For example, he said it was $350 for 3 grams but when I asked if there was a smaller quantity available, he told me it was $100 per gram. The maths should have set off alarm bells. And when I offered him $50 for his trouble, he turned it down. Why would he go to all that effort to score for a stranger … for free? I should have noticed the urgency as well.

Once again, I have learnt a valuable life lesson but will my resolve to be less trusting of druggies fade over time? It’s true that addicts are hard done by when it comes to the stereotyped image that society has given them but the anger and embarrassment from being ripped off by one of them nearly stops me even caring … until I realise I’m one of them!

Yes, I am a druggy as well. I was the one who was looking to score and I initiated the first contact. The difference though, is that I wasn’t looking to cheat someone through deceit. I was merely wanting to purchase something that made me happy. I was willing to pay for it with money I earned and even offered $50 to the shyster for 20 minutes work. But like every group of people, there are always some who are trash. Some who will rob you blind and have no respect for anyone except themselves. Addiction is a curse that will drive some desperate people to desperate measures but this guy is simply one of those lowlifes that infest every collection of people we put a tag on.


Hillary Clinton and THAT Comment
On a lighter note, Hillary Clinton has been nominated for the Silliest Comment of the Year award. 

BE WARNED: You might need to sit down for this one. 

Whilst in Mexico, Hillary was being interviewed for a local TV news show. The reporter asked for her opinion about the latest suggestion from some politicians that legalising drugs might turn around the drug war in Mexico. Hillary responded:

I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work … There is just too much money in it.

Well, that’s a new angle.

Hillary continued:

and I don't think that – you can legalise small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

There you go. Words of wisdom from one of the most powerful people on the planet. 

Is anyone worried that this person is one of the key decision makers for a country that enforces their local drug policy on the entire world? How the US manage their drug policy affects hundreds of millions of people from every country but one of it’s most powerful leaders can’t comprehend a simple yet fundamental economic principle. The premise of any prohibition driving up prices is universally understood so why would the US Secretary of State be so clueless? Whether Hillary is genuinely a bit thick on real world situations or was trying to spin her way out of a tricky question, it seems that as usual and regardless of context, any mention of drugs and all common sense, logic and reason fly out the window.


Harm Minimisation Coming to New Jersey - Only 20 years Too Late
Sometimes it's hard to believe it's 2011.

From the New Jersey News:

Bill To Permit The Sale Of Syringes Without A Prescription Advances

TRENTON – A bill sponsored by state Sen. Joseph F. Vitale to allow pharmacies in New Jersey to sell hypodermic syringes and needles without a prescription was approved by the Senate Thursday by a vote of 28-12.

Yep, after decades of lobbying by numerous health organisations and with rates of HIV/AIDS amongst intravenous drug users topping out over 1000% higher than Australia, New Jersey is attempting to legalise syringes. Not marijuana or ecstasy or even heroin but syringes.

It’s definitely goods news and long overdue but how could New Jersey be so out of touch with reality? It’s a real brain bender that this law existed for so long while mountains of research and evidence - clearly showing that access to clean injecting equipment saved lives and money - kept landing on the desks of law makers. What about the thousands of deaths that were racked up from blood borne diseases while complacent politicians and holier-than-thou anti-drug nutters congratulated themselves for “not sending the wrong message”. Being charged for possession of a syringe without a prescription is just absurd but then I’m used to Australia’s pragmatic approach and successful harm minimisation programs. I can’t help but wonder though - if they were so freaked out over syringes, imagine what they thought when someone suggested a needle exchange program?!

Dropping this law is a no-brainer and I’m sure most people agree. But look again at the votes. Did you notice that 12 senators want to retain the current law? WTF is that about? How much evidence do they need? How many drug users have to contract HIV/AIDS or Hep C before they change their mind? Don’t they feel foolish being a minority when the issue being voted on involves saving lives? In 2011, there is no excuse for voting against this bill. Those that did, should be made to explain their reasoning and if they roll out the usual "War on Drugs" rhetoric, then they should be put in a time machine and sent back to the 1980s.


Bernie Finn Feedback
Talking about out-of-date politicians, I have received quite a bit of feedback about the Bernie Finn article. If you remember, I questioned Finn’s support of the death penalty especially for drug dealing. After I posted the article, I sent off several email to politicians in the western suburbs of Melbourne. I noticed from my web logs that nearly every email recipient then went on to read my article with several emailing me back. Surprisingly, every email I received supported my views with some politicians even making a point to tell me that they completely opposed Finn’s warped ideology.  I just wish they would be more vocal in public while they have the power to make a difference.


Injustice
And on a final note, I received an email from Gary Toca, the young man at the centre of the Justice is a Joke article. Gary was cruelly sentenced to 10 years jail for supplying the heroin that killed his friend, Pierce Sharai. He wasn’t a drug dealer but was simply the one chosen out of a group of friends to make the purchase. As I said in the original article, Gary’s sentence is cruel and unjust yet typical of how desperate some opportunists have become to jail drug offenders. They weren’t dealing with some violent punk with a long rap sheet but an honours student with no criminal background. Although Gary was helping police, it seems that when they couldn’t find the drug dealer, they turned their attention to an easier target … Gary himself. Is this one of the worst cases of injustice you have ever read about?

Here’s Gary’s first email (with his permission):

Hey Terry, 
This is Gary Toca, the person who was sentenced to 10 year's for his friend's overdose.  I am currently on bond and have to report to Beaumont, Texas on February 17 to begin my jail term.    

I really appreciate the article you wrote.  

This has been a very difficult time for me, but I am thankful for anyone who expresses concern for my case or for harsh drug laws in general. Your article speaks truth on many levels.  

People like you are needed in the US and abroad, in order to raise awareness about the draconian sentencing that is rendered upon those involved with drugs; as well as, the over sentencing that occurs due to politicians primarily being concerned with the advancement of their careers. Another serious problem with the justice system in the US is the FBI, DEA, and other agencies. They can be vindictive and tyrannical; a far cry from the way the public perceives them to be.  

If you have any questions about me or my case, I will be glad to answer them. It's good to know that you believe that drug users should be treated as people with medical problems, and not criminals. 

Thanks, Gary Toca


Gary’s second email

Hello again,

Yes, this incident has been devastating for me. When I first was informed that I would probably receive around a 10 year sentence, I was completely despondent and felt suicidal most days.  I can't really describe how depressed I was. Knowing that I would be much older when I got out was what really had me down.

They do have good time in the Federal system (you have to serve 85% of your sentence), along with a drug program which takes a year off of your sentence and guarantees you 6 months in a halfway house if you qualify for it. Assuming that I earn all of my good time credit and get into the drug program, I should spend about 7 years in there and get out when I am 30.  

Someone who has changed my outlook on this though, is my mentor, Hakim Kashif. He spent around 16 1/2 years in federal prison for distributing cocaine.  He changed the way I think about being in prison by getting me to think positively and to focus on the things I can do to better myself while I am there. He has helped me to have hope again. While it can still be very difficult for me at times, I try to keep in mind that I can still have a good life when I get out and can be in better shape physically and mentally than I ever would have been had this not happened to me.  

As far as my case is concerned, I will not be able to appeal, since I plead guilty and there were no breaches of my plea agreement. The only thing that could reduce my sentence is a change in the legislature.  Such a thing seems unlikely at this point, so I don't plan on holding my breath.  

I could go on for days about the problems with US Federal justice system in how they handled my case, along with thousands of other drug offenders, but I will have to save that for another e-mail.

Peace

PS - I would not mind you posting any of my e-mails on your site.  

I can’t help but feel devastated about this story. Gary Toca seems to be a decent, intelligent human being who has had his life shattered by some shit stain wanting to further their career. I hope that person is happy with their handy work. I also hope that person is run over by a truck.

5 comments:
Labels , , , , , , ,

Monday, 21 February 2011

Study Proves Ecstasy is Safe … ish

Finally! After years of dodgy reporting and hysterical reactions, ecstasy(MDMA) has been given the green light. Well, maybe not green but at least amber.

Residual Neurocognitive Features Of Long-Term Ecstasy Users With Minimal Exposure To Other Drugs
John H. Halpern1, Andrea R. Sherwood4, James I. Hudson2, Staci Gruber3, David Kozin1, Harrison G. Pope Jr2,*
Article first published online: 15 FEB 2011
© 2010 The Authors, Addiction © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction

ABSTRACT
Aims:  In field studies assessing cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users, there are several frequent confounding factors that might plausibly bias the findings toward an overestimate of ecstasy-induced neurocognitive toxicity. We designed an investigation seeking to minimize these possible sources of bias.

Design:  We compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while (1) excluding individuals with significant life-time exposure to other illicit drugs or alcohol; (2) requiring that all participants be members of the ‘rave’ subculture; and (3) testing all participants with breath, urine and hair samples at the time of evaluation to exclude possible surreptitious substance use. We compared groups with adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family-of-origin variables and childhood history of conduct disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We provide significance levels without correction for multiple comparisons.

Setting:  Field study.

Participants:  Fifty-two illicit ecstasy users and 59 non-users, aged 18–45 years.

Measurements:   Battery of 15 neuropsychological tests tapping a range of cognitive functions.

Findings:  We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation, possibly reflecting increased impulsivity. However, this finding might have reflected a pre-morbid attribute of ecstasy users, rather than a residual neurotoxic effect of the drug.

Conclusions:  In a study designed to minimize limitations found in many prior investigations, we failed to demonstrate marked residual cognitive effects in ecstasy users. This finding contrasts with many previous findings—including our own—and emphasizes the need for continued caution in interpreting field studies of cognitive function in illicit ecstasy users.

The myths about ecstasy have plagued us for decades and continue today. Although MDMA is probably the safest recreational drug we know of, it is still classified by all countries as a schedule I drug along side heroin and LSD. It is even listed as more dangerous than cocaine and amphetamines. Even though several US health industry groups went to court in 1985 and the judge ruled that MDMA should be available for research, the DEA ignored the ruling and used their own special emergency powers to ban it immediately. Since then, it has remained as a schedule I drug. This was the start of a campaign against MDMA where the truth comes second to scary myths, ranting nutters and dubious research. Although it still rages on today, this latest research might finally shed some myths that are all too often, quoted as facts.

With Ecstasy out of control in the states, the government attempted to take action – with propaganda. In 1998 the DEA decided to sponsor Dr. George Ricardi of John Hopkins University to do a study pertaining to the effects that Ecstasy had on the brain. With Ricardi’s research complete he published his final results. His research showed that when a person takes one single recreational dose of Ecstasy it reduced the brain’s serotonin (chemical in the brain that regulates mood, appetite, sleep, and emotion) by 50-85% which was then irreversible. With this information out, NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) produced a pamphlet labeled, “Your Brain on Ecstasy,” the image shown was that of a brain with a line cutting down the middle of it. On the left side was the label, “Your Brain Before Ecstasy” with a full, healthy looking brain. On the right side were the words, “Your Brain After Ecstasy,” which was visually portrayed as a shriveled, hole infested lump. The image was supposed to show the serotonin depletion after a dose of MDMA but as Dr. Stephen Kish (who is the world’s leading researcher studying the brain) said, “The problem with these index cards given to young people by NIDA is that the brain scan pictures of the Ecstasy users looks like there are large holes in the brain, and that’s just not true. But for me the main problem with the index cards was that it was based on faulty data (Jennings, 2004).” That is where the myth was born that Ecstasy causes holes in the brain. In 2002, Ricardi performed another government funded study on the effects MDMA had on the brain. This test was to prove that one tablet of Ecstasy could cause Parkinson’s disease in the individual. His test was performed on monkeys, by injecting them with what was allegedly a single dose of “Ecstasy.” His verdict: Ecstasy can lead to Parkinsonism. 

Dr. Kish was right; there was faulty data in the 1998 Ricardi study. The first obvious fault in his study was the fact that from the subjects he used to test, it could not have been certain whether or not they had ever even used MDMA in their lives because there was no hair sample (hair samples are used to test for drug use over a long period of time). The second major issue that’s prevalent is that during his testing, Ricardi noted that some brains had almost 40x more serotonin than others, “scientists say such a variation is simply impossible (Jennings, 2004).” After being disproved by Kish he retracted his 2002 statement that said that Ecstasy can lead to Parkinson’s disease by saying “[he] mistakenly gave methamphetamines, a far more toxic substance than Ecstasy, to the monkeys he used in the study (Jennings, 2003)." 

The “Hole in the brain” myth was popularised by Oprah and an MTV special on Ecstasy in 2000. This type of publicity still drives the hysteria surrounding ecstasy along with the usual suspect from the anti-drug brigade.

The problem to date is that the research into MDMA has been dubious at best. Although not as bad as the “Hole in the brain” scam or the claims that it causes Parkinson’s Disease after one use, most research has been rejected by experts as biased or flawed. Ironically, this latest robust research is by NIDA, the very group who blindly supported the flawed studies by Dr. George Ricardi and spent millions promoting his findings. Even after Dr. Ricardi’s research was exposed as flawed, NIDA refused to remove his findings from their website. You have to wonder if they commissioned this latest research in the hope that negative results would back their decade’s old campaign against MDMA. Whatever their motives, this latest study must be burning a hole in the brain of the officials who have tried so hard, for so long to demonise ecstasy.


Related articles

2 comments:
Labels , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)