Showing posts with label Cracker Comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cracker Comments. Show all posts

Sunday, 14 November 2010

Cracker Comments: Oct - Nov 2010

Welcome to the latest instalment of Cracker Comments. Where self appointed experts, finger waggers and anti-science proponents assault us with their own, unique brand of moral imperativeness. 

Every week, we are treated to mind-bending analogies that defy logic and there’s no better topic than illegal drugs for these self proclaimed oracles to apply their craft. 



Brendan O'Connor
Role: : Home Affairs Minister (ALP)
Date: October 2010

With almost half-a-tonne of cocaine worth over $160 million being seized in Brisbane, the authorities are jumping for joy. It’s emotional times like these that provide a perfect environment for over zealous authorities to open their mouth before engaging their brain. 

Home Affairs Minister, Brendan O'Connor would have been told on dozens of occasions that organised crime dealing in drugs would have their main source of income removed if illicit drugs were regulated by the government. Not only would this strategy be devastating for criminal gangs but it would most likely reduce about 80% of all crime. It would be like stamping out all future cases of theft in our community. Almost too much to comprehend.

It’s really simple - remove the profit incentives and crime stops. The problem is our current approach that tackles the drug trade just isn’t working and the massive profits remain. You see, we only capture about 10-15% of all imported drugs at the moment and that’s according to the authorities. The real figures are unknown and probably much smaller. By having the knowledge that drug regulation would wipe out most criminal organisations in Australia but deciding instead to settle on stopping only 10%, is not a very logical choice. All the rhetoric in the world is not going to change the situation especially when we have heard the same old line for nearly 50 years.

"What we do know is, that if we want to dismantle organised crime we must attack the money flow, we must attack their income source"

The police were very lucky to find the boat with $160 million worth of cocaine. They were tipped off by US authorities. Without this tip, there would be another multi-million dollar load of illicit drugs in Australia. Although $160 million is a lot of money on the streets, the actual value to the crims is minute. Heroin and cocaine is marked up by about 17,000% by the time it is consumed. Add to that the built in loss factor at a ratio of one in ten and the bosses aren’t too worried at all. You have to wonder if claims of upsetting the drug kingpins is really necessary or an attempt to be seen to be doing something.

"This is a great blow landed this week by our law enforcement agencies"

A “great blow” to who? Brendan O'Connor really means, a great PR exercise.


Steve Price
Role: : Shock Jock and Opinion Writer 
Source: HeraldSun
Date: October 2010

Steve’s love affair with booze once again portrays drug use as the villain for crimes that are mostly caused by alcohol.

"Paedophiles roam the streets looking for victims, while bullies and teenagers high on drugs are desperate to rob any defenceless kid of their mobile phone or runners, or both"

How many cases have you read about where “bullies and teenagers high on drugs” have robbed a “defenceless kid of their mobile phone or runners, or both”? Let’s see, mmm, oh yeah … zero. That honour goes to bullies and teenagers pissed out their minds.


News Ltd Reader
Source: PerthNow
Date: October 2010

An article titled, Brazen Street Prostitutes Working Close To Perth Police HQ from Perth’s The Sunday Times attracted some bizarre comments. None so more than this cracker.

"Its a very dodgy area around there. Wouldn't surprise me if most of them were druggies financing their habit. Its when local residents get propositioned that it becomes bad. How about some undercover policewomen around there?? This is what they do in the movies & it seems to work!!!"
--pinkmini of Perth

Yes, it’s real.


Bob Falconer / Russell Armstrong
Role: : Former West Australian Police Commissioner / West Australian Police Union President 
Date: October 2010

As the use of tasers by police becomes more common, it seems the reasons become more fanciful. Bob Falconer rejected the idea that it is because there is no longer minimum height and weight standards for police but had his own explanation.

"Years ago, heroin was an analgesic -- they got sleepy, they got dopey. Now they're using drugs that give them the strength of five human beings and make them extremely unpredictable and violent"

Incredible … some drugs give you the strength of five human beings! Not to be left out, West Australian Police Union president Russell Armstrong added this:

“People fuelled by alcohol and drugs can't control themselves and start punching police”

Well done Bob and Russell.

Remember PCP? It too had the magically ability to give people super-human strength. Incredibly it was completely debunked by science. Who would have thought that some people would exaggerate the effects of drugs?


Sophie Mirabella
Role: Federal MP (Lib)
Date: November 2010

We all know that Sophie Mirabella can be a goose but blatantly misleading the public, time and time again is just going too far. Sophie’s anti-drug sentiments might be well known but they are not based it on anything factual. Repeating the same old line which is devoid of the truth isn’t winning Sophie any credibility.

“The Greens like to hide what they are really about. They have a motherhood statement about not legalising illegal drugs but they contradict themselves on their own website, in their own policy by saying they support prescribed heroin trials, cannabis use”

Like so many other anti-drug zealots, Sophie misses the point of the Greens’ drug policy. Medical marijuana and prescription heroin are medical programs and have nothing to do with legalisation. The Greens make it quite clear that they don’t support the legalisation of any illicit drugs but they do support Harm Minimisation and evidence based policies. A far cry from making all drugs legal.


Michael Mischin
Role: : Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General; Minister for Corrective Services (Lib) 
Source: Mischin.Blog
Date: October 2010

As we all know, WA are changing the state’s cannabis laws. Many people including experts, argue that they are not making these changes based on any evidence but purely for political and ideological reasons. The fact is, the previous policies were working while all others states with harsher laws, similar to the proposed changes, were continuing with increased drug related problems. But don’t let science, history and evidence get in the way of a good political spiel.

“Cannabis is not a ‘soft’ drug.

It is not a ‘recreational’ drug.

It is not a harmless drug.

It is a gateway drug.

Use of cannabis also increases the risk of mental illness such as schizophrenia.

It is a drug that ruins lives and I am proud that we have reversed the failed policy of the previous government.

[…]

Yes, these are tough moves but we need strong laws like this that send the right message about cannabis – that it is dangerous.”

You have to laugh. Sanctimonious boneheads frothing at the mouth because of a relatively harmless drug (for most adults) but saying very little about the carnage caused by their favourite drug … booze. Selective facts mixed in with exaggerations and lies. Claims that tough, failed and outdated law are necessary to 'send the right message'. Yes, it would be funny except these self-important, agenda driven politicians cause more pain, more carnage, more misery and more problems than cannabis ever will. 


Barry O'Farrell
Role: : NSW Opposition Leader (Lib)
Source: ABC News / Hansard
Date: October 2010

One of the true joys in life is watching politicians make an ass of themselves. It’s especially sweet when they make some grandiose proclamation to make an important point but it completely contradicts the facts. When this happens, I immediately have visions of 17th century religious leaders proclaiming the earth is flat and we should be thankful they are protecting us from falling off the edge of the world.

We got to see this during the MSIC debate in the NSW parliament last month where we heard from some politicians who opposed the safe injection centre. Although most of those present in parliament during the debate were wise enough to accept the overwhelming evidence and advice from experts. some were working on their own “flat earth” theories.  But regardless of their impassioned views that MSIC was “encouraging drug use” or ‘sending the wrong message”, none of them focussed on the extensive evidence that proved the effectiveness of the clinic. One of those politicians though - Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell - did seem to grasp the importance of evidence based policy. 

“It’s not the way to run drug policy, where policy and programs should be evidence-based, not based on the views of 12 people sitting in a marginal seat”.

The problem was that Barry had just finished denouncing the MSIC program and all the evidence that formed the government’s drug policy concerning the centre. Maybe, the evidence was not the evidence he wanted? Who cares, he had his own theory.

“I oppose this legislation because it fails to meet both the goals set down by the government when it started it

I oppose it because of my concerns the state's harm minimisation policy pays too little attention to advocating no drug use, to rescuing people from their terrible addiction, and pays too much attention to trying to manage those addictions.

Thirdly, I oppose it because I don't believe there is any safe level of drug abuse and I think it does send the wrong message.

Ahead of next year's election campaign I would encourage the premier to put funding into services that will enable those who use this centre, who want to beat this addiction, who want to get access and are prepared to pursue access and treatment through drug rehabilitation services, to get the help they deserve to rid them of their addiction.”

Ironically, Barry O'Farrell accused the Premier of playing politics over the issue.


Related Articles



Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Cracker Comments: May - Sept 2010


Welcome to the latest instalment of Cracker Comments. Where self appointed experts, finger waggers and anti-science proponents assault us with their own, unique brand of moral imperativeness. 

Every week, we are treated to mind-bending analogies that defy logic and there’s no better topic than illegal drugs for these self proclaimed oracles to apply their craft. 


Graham Jacobs
Role: : Western Australian Minister Mental Health
Date: August 2010

The WA government has recently copped a lot of flack over their decision to repeal the state’s successful Cannabis Control Act. In their defence they cited debunked myths like the gateway theory, junk science reports exaggerating links to mental health disorders and the usual anti-drug slogans from the 1980s. What they failed to tell us was they had no actual scientific evidence backing their decision. In fact, the medical world is full of recent research slamming the very strategies they have proposed. 

So it was a real treat to hear the Minister for Mental Health referring to the need for evidence based solutions and rejecting the very tactics his government initiated.

"Solutions need to be based on the evidence, not driven by popular, and often misguided notions of how harms can be reduced."

Evidence? Misguided notions of how harms can be reduced? Did the minister even check what one of his overpaid hacks had written for him? His statement actually acknowledged that cannabis use had “been steadily and significantly declining” under the previous policy which means the “misguided notions of how harms can be reduced” was … er, reducing harms. It doesn’t get much funnier than this.


Rebecca Wilson
Role: HeraldSun Sports Reporter
Date: September 2010

The previous article in The Australian Heroin Diaries congratulated HeraldSun reporter, Mike Sheahan for slamming self indulgent, self important journalists / broadcasters who were arrogantly portraying themselves as experts on illicit drugs and recovery treatment. Since then, Hawthorn player, Travis Tuck has been pinged by the AFL for drug use a third time after an incident where police found him unconscious in his car. It’s been revealed that Tuck has been suffering from depression with the AFL medical experts helping him with treatment. As per their drug policy, the AFL has penalised Tuck for having three strikes and suspended him for 12 matches along with as much help as he needs.

But, here’s the crunch. After all the criticism dished out to the AFL for their drug policy not naming and shaming players who use drugs, some boneheads like Rebecca Wilson from the HeraldSun are now crying the AFL were too harsh.

"In the meantime, the AFL has effectively abandoned him by publicly hanging him out to dry when he is at his most vulnerable."

I’m sorry Bec, but you’re a goose.

Anyway, this article is about cracker comments and although the above quote from WIlson tickles us the real prize is yet to come. Wilson, with her many decades of drug abuse expertise [sarcasm] has decided the AFL need not bother their medical experts anymore as she has the solution. 

"Admissions of weakness are not such a bad thing. Demetriou and Anderson simply must throw out the rule book and start again. Consult those at the coalface who live and breathe club footy with dozens of young men at their physical and professional peak."

Yep, lose the medical stiffs and employ the wisdom of a footy club. I know I would feel better knowing someone was being treated for a complex medical condition by a football club administrator, a handball coach and the orange boy.

Once again … Bec, you’re a goose.

Ian Leavers
Role: Qld. Police Union President 
Date: July 2010

Here’s a snippet from an article in The Sunday Mail (Qld.):

Recent police figures show 50 officers a week are being spat on, punched, kicked and assaulted with more than 2700 officers assaulted across Queensland last year.
[…]
On Friday, a teenage girl was jailed for repeatedly spitting on an officer and yesterday a man, 18, was charged with serious assault for spitting at a city officer.

The police may very well deserve a pay increase in line with other public servants but using scary, fictitious scenarios is not really appropriate e.g. claiming that disease ridden druggies spitting on officers will somehow infect them with HIV or Hep C. Yep, the hospitals are full of dying people infected by spitting druggies.

"When you get spat on by an offender, who very well could have been using drugs, you need to get a disease test order to make sure you're not infected.
How do you explain to your three-year-old child that you can't show them affection, you can't give them a kiss because you might have hepatitis or HIV?"

Oh dear.


Andrew Bolt
Role: Moral Crusader / Opinion Writer / Anti-Science Pundit / Regular on Radio Station MTR
Date: May 2010

We all know Andy hates evidence based policies but could he be anymore obvious?

"You could just see that coming down the corridor, couldn’t you … harm minimisation."



Related Articles

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

Cracker Comments - Steve Price(MTR)

Last month, Steve Price from radio station, MTR interviewed John Rogerson, the CEO of the Australian Drug Foundation. The topic was the AFL’s 3 strike drug policy.

Steve Price: What do you think of this idea that you can have 2 strikes and still not be named?

John Rogerson: I think it’s one of the strengths of the policy. This policy is about trying to help players who are using drugs to get off them.

Steve Price: Wouldn’t publicly shaming you after the 1st offence be more likely to get you off than keeping it a secret?

John Rogerson: The research is very, very clear on this. Public shaming does not work … one bit.

Steve Price: I don’t know how you can say that. 

Yes, the man known as the “Angry Dwarf” was not going to accept the word of a drug addiction expert or even the dozens of studies into the subject. He had his own views and it became obvious that nothing was going to change his mind.

Steve Price: How’s it working?

John Rogerson: It’s working because the number of players failing tests is decreasing.

Steve Price: That’s the numbers caught. You’re not really suggesting only 14 AFL players in the 2009 on and off season took illicit drugs, are you?

John Rogerson: I don’t know what else we can expect the AFL to do. They are testing and testing more and clearly the percentage of players failing tests is decreasing. I think what we need to bear in mind with this whole program is that if we look at the level of drug use in the AFL compared to what’s going on in the community, it’s far, far, far less so we look at the recent stats around cannabis use, 20% of males aged between 20 and 29 are using cannabis. The AFL have got one failed test.

Steve Price: Yeah, but those stats don’t match reality.


John Rogerson said on at least 5 occasions, that research clearly shows that publicly shaming drug users has a negative impact. What was Steve Price’s source of information? Why was he so adamant that John Rogerson was wrong and he was right? Price was more concerned with punishing a player than any need to help them.

Steve Price has a long history of trying to sensationalise moral issues, especially drugs. From way back in the days when he worked on 3AW, to his years on 2UE trying to crack the Sydney market, Price has been consistent with his “Shock Jock” image and bursts of moral outrage. For those who might not have had the pleasure of seeing Steve in action, here is a refresher.




The problem with bucketheads like Steve Price is that they take themselves so seriously they forget the need to check facts. It’s being perpetually angry, self righteous and having an insatiable quest for popularity that will enviably lead to taking short cuts and without the facts, it can backfire. ABC’s MediaWatch has at least 2 examples of this. But the biggest problem for Price is hypocrisy. Steve might hate drugs but his love affair with booze is somehow OK. He has written about his own excessive drinking several times for News Ltd and even has a police record for drunk-driving. Interestingly, his drunk-driving conviction didn’t stop him fronting a report on car hoons for A Current Affair. Conveniently, his current disqualification for drunk driving wasn’t mentioned and either were his 7 driving offences including 5 for speeding. Another example of hypocrisy was the failure to declare his wife, Wendy Black, worked for ex Workplace Relations Minister, Joe Hockey. How many interviews did he conduct with politicians without declaring that rip-snorter? And to top it off, it seems that the bulldog image he endears so much can be a wee bit sensitive at times. Steve Price has the honour of being one of Australia’s most litigious journalist. He has sued Steven Mayne from Crikey, Richmond’s Kevin Bartlett, Adnews magazine and Dr Turf as well as threatening various others with court action. Not surprisingly, he himself has been sued 3 times at least including one incident involving gay slurs.

Very much about different styles of talk radio and why Steve Price is moving to Sydney, and it's seen as quite a good move for Steve, because he probably suits the radio shock-jock culture that Sydney has got firmly entrenched far more than he suits Melbourne. His sort of abusive and abrasive style I think will sit very well in a 2UE where you've had John Laws for years and up until recently, Alan Jones, so I think he fits that genre of shock-jock quite well.

Let’s face it. Steve Price is not a journalist or a well researched opinionist. He is a shock jock like Stan Zemanek or Alan Jones. His holier-than-thou rants might boost his own self confidence but it is a far cry from the serious, hard hitting “journalism” that he tries to portray. Maybe, someone should tell him that defying experts on air with smug, bully-like tactics does not change the facts. It may entertain an ignorant public by sticking it to an ivory tower academic but it still just boils down to trash reporting from a uninformed, shock jock.

This is a big part of the MTR philosophy: you don’t have to read a book to know what’s what.

The interview with John Rogerson was disgraceful. Throwing in ridiculous comments like, “You think it’s OK to take drugs, do you?” or using out of context scenarios are just cheap ploys to win a straw man argument. But nothing stings your credibility more than not knowing who you are actually interviewing. 

Steve Price: OK Thank you John, John Rogerson CEO from the Australian Drug Foundation. Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is? So I can tell people why that bloke has got such a stupid, soft view of the world. What a dumb thing to say. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. What are the Australian Drug Foundation? A marketing arm for drug dealers?

There you go. “Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is?”  Maybe, this question should have been asked before the interview. I wonder if Steve would ask the same question about Good Sports, Australian Drug Information Network(ADIN), Community Alcohol Action Network(CAAN), Centre for Youth Drug Studies(CYDS) or the DrugInfo Clearinghouse? All these groups are part of ADF. They certainly are not, “a marketing arm for drug dealers”.



Full Transcript



Steve Price: What do you think of this idea that you can have 2 strikes and still not be named?

John Rogerson: I think it’s one of the strengths of the policy. This policy is about trying to help players who are using drugs to get off them.

Steve Price: Wouldn’t publicly shaming you after the 1st offence be more likely to get you off than keeping it a secret?

John Rogerson: The research is very, very clear on this. Public shaming does not work … one bit.

Steve Price: I don’t know how you can say that. 

John Rogerson: The research shows right around the world shows that if you want to help people with their addiction, where it drugs, sex, food, whatever. Then publicly shaming them has a negative impact.

Steve Price: So we should have kept Tiger Woods sexual escapades secret and he would have been more easily cured?

John Rogerson: Nah, definitely not saying that.

Steve Price: But you are saying that.

John Rogerson: No, the evidence on this is very, very clear. Public shaming is not to going to help anybody in our community get off any addiction that they have.

Steve Price: As an employer, shouldn’t I know if one of my employees is taking drugs illegally? 

John Rogerson: Well, I guess it depends on what you are going to do. If you look at the general community attitude towards illicit drugs, there is all sorts of hire and shame when they hear of anyone who takes illicit drugs. And in general Steve, it stigmatises these people. So therefore that doesn’t help with their recovery. So the whole purpose of this program is to help people recover. And stigmatising them, berating them is not going to help. 

Steve Price: It’s just a soft way out. It’s just saying we’ll keep it secret. No one will ever know, if you’re not a bad boy again, we won’t punish you.

John Rogerson: I don’t know how you can say that. Clearly this policy, this program is working.

Steve Price: How’s it working?

John Rogerson: It’s working because the number of players failing tests is decreasing.

Steve Price: That’s the numbers court. You’re not really suggesting only 14 AFL players in the 2009 on and off season took illicit drugs, are you?

John Rogerson: I don’t know what else we can expect the AFL to do. They are testing and testing more and clearly the percentage of players failing tests is decreasing. I think what we need to bear in mind with this whole program is that if we look at the level of drug use in the AFL compared to what’s going on in the community, it’s far, far, far less so we look at the recent stats around cannabis use, 20% of males aged between 20 and 29 are using cannabis. The AFL have got one failed test.

Steve Price: Yeah, but those stats don’t match reality.

John Rogerson: What would you like them to do Steve?

Steve Price: What I would like them to do is make public those players who are using drugs so if I have a 17 year old kid who is going to be drafted, I would like to know the club is going to be tough on their players who take drugs and they aught to be sacked. I’d be sacked if I got caught taking drugs.

John Rogerson: Well, you might be sacked.

Steve Price: Not might … would be!

John Rogerson: But the average person in the community who got caught using cannabis for example... 

Steve Price: Train drivers - sacked. Police officers - sacked. Ambulance officers - sacked. Doctors - sacked. 

John Rogerson: There’s an issue there about public safety. The average person in the community caught using cannabis does not get put in jail. They actually get support, treatment and diversion.

Steve Price: What about the average person who goes out and buys ice, ecstasy and cocaine from a drug dealer? That’s fine is it? What message are you sending to young people? 

John Rogerson: What this is about, and I know the view in the community is, let’s get tough on them, it actually doesn’t help them.

Steve Price: The community actually reflects what really should be the real view. They should get tough on people. This is just a soft way to deal with the issue. It is absolutely just ruining the lives of so many young people. 

John Rogerson: No, no… 

Steve Price: You think it’s OK to take drugs, do you?

John Rogerson: No, I definitely don’t think it’s OK to take drugs. But if we are going to help people using drugs get off them, then public shaming, putting them in jail, all that stuff … it doesn’t work. And the research and evidence is really clear on this. So it’s alright to have public opinion to be really tough on them but it doesn’t work.

Steve Price: OK Thank you John, John Rogerson CEO from the Australian Drug Foundation. Can we work out what the Australian Drug Foundation actually is? So I can tell people why that bloke has got such a stupid, soft view of the world. What a dumb thing to say. What an absolutely stupid thing to say. What are the Australian Drug Foundation? A marketing arm for drug dealers?

Monday, 8 March 2010

Cracker Comments - Feb/Mar 2010

Months ago, I mentioned that I might run a special segment called Comment of the Week. It was just a fleeting idea and remained in the To Do file ever since. But recently, I have discovered so many juicy and kooky comments that it prompted me to drag out the Comment of the Week idea.

I was going to call it Squawk of the Week.

squawk |skwɔːk|
verb [ intrans. ]
(of a bird) make a loud, harsh noise : the geese flew upriver, squawking.
• [with direct speech ] (of a person) say something in a loud, discordant tone : “What are you doing?” she squawked.
• complain or protest about something.
noun
a loud, harsh or discordant noise made by a bird or a person.
• a complaint or protest : her plan provoked a loud squawk from her friends.

The example from the dictionary, a loud, harsh or discordant noise made by a bird or a person conjured up images of Colin Barnett farting and the harsh, scary sound it would make. - SQUAAAAWK. But I needed to focus on the actual words that comes out of his arse and not the terrifying farting sound that belongs in a scene from a gothic horror film.

Anyway, squawk was used quite a bit on the interwebs so I needed something new and original. Plus, I couldn’t see myself consistently putting out a weekly segment on time. After tossing around several ideas with friends, we came up with something simple and concise (and quick) - Cracker Comments. It could be a bunch of comments that are “crackers” or it might mean a cracker(nutty person) makes a comment. Either way, both are apt descriptions.



Mike Rann
South Australian Premier
March 2010

He also condemned Ms Redmond's attendance at a rave party.

"I just think that it's incredibly irresponsible for any political leader to attend a rave party," he said. "It comes down to values."

Ms Redmond shot back saying she had been taken out of context when she'd said "ecstasy didn't appear to be as dangerous as some other drugs". She had attended the rave with a drug and alcohol doctor and said she had been been comparing ecstasy to cocaine, crack and ice. She condemned the use of any illicit drug.
-Rann Apologises For Chantelois 'Friendship' - Sydney Morning Herald

With an election fast approaching in SA, the dirty game of politics has began with Labor firing the first shot. Media Mike has taken aim at opposition leader, Isobel Redmond and questioned her “values” for going to a rave. I have no idea why attending a rave with another politician and a drug and alcohol doctor on a fact finding mission is considered “incredibly irresponsible”. If anything, it sums up the current Labor administration that has enacted some of the worse drug laws this decade. Let’s hope Isobel doesn’t lose the shred of credibility she has ... ooops, too late.


Kevin Zuccato
AFP Assistant Commissioner
February 2010

The joint operation between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACPBS) has led to the seizure of 145 parcels nationwide since Monday, police said. Drugs were found in children's soft toys, nappies and books, among other items, AFP Assistant Commissioner Kevin Zuccato (Zuccato) told reporters in Sydney on Friday.

"I think what this demonstrates across the board is just how insidious organised crime is and the callousness of these individuals who would choose to hide narcotics in kids' toys and possibly put kids at risk," Mr Zuccato said.
-'Miaow' Drug Seized In Mail Busts - Sydney Morning Herald

Trying to establish a tenuous link between a recent drug bust and harm to kids is usually the role of slimy politicians but the Australian Federal Police (AFP) has shown recently they are prepared to stoop just as low. The comment from AFP Assistant Commissioner Kevin Zuccato is simply a disingenuous attempt at moral hysteria, an act usually reserved for politicians. If we follow his logic, importing drugs in women’s designer shoes is putting socialites at risk. You have to laugh.


Brian Watters
INCB / DFA / Salvation Army
March 2010

“The other thing that worries me greatly about the thing, we are not providing any really meaningful counselling. When they put out their statistics they say they have referred so many people to treatment. Now, I can tell you, all of the major treatment agencies, last time that I enquired which is probably a year or two, have told me that they have never had anybody come to them from the injecting room. There are certainly people being referred to substitution programs like methadone but the vast majority of people that `I have dealt with using methadone will tell you they are also using other substances.”
-Injecting Centre Pushes for Permanency - 2SER’s Razor Edge

What a twit! According to Watters, Methadone Maintenance Treatment(MMT) is not a legitimate form of treatment and doesn’t count so that’s why he claims nobody has turned up for treatment after a MSIC referral. Thousands of users have actually turned up for treatment via a referral, just not the treatment Watters approves of. And to further shine a light on his twittery, he then makes the rash statement that the “vast majority” of methadone patients use “other substances” as well.

The INCB must have watched Watters for years with great anticipation as he developed into a perfect candidate to join their board; an anti-drug zealot, a fundamentalist Christian, a member of the staunch anti-harm minimisation group, Drug Free Australia (DFA) and chummy with the then current PM, John Howard, who was also a Zero Tolerance advocate. What a scary scenario for humanity.