Showing posts with label Decriminalisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Decriminalisation. Show all posts

Monday, 3 January 2011

Drug Law Reform for Middle East But Not Australia

Of all the regions in the world, the Middle East is the most unlikely to consider drug law reform. But drug law reform is an unpredictable process and it can rear it’s head in the most unexpected places.

Most of the countries with tough drug laws tend to have large a religious population with Islamic countries leading the way. Although The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is more liberal than surrounding countries, it is still primarily run by Islamic rules including the co-existence of Sharia law with a more modern civil law jurisdiction. But unlike many of it’s neighbours, the UAE tolerates alcohol and has committed to a robust human rights agenda. Other religions apart from Islam are also tolerated giving the country a harmonious multicultural setting with little public conflict between the various faiths.

Although the UAE may be open to western influences, it is still a far cry from highly democratic countries like Australia, the US and the UK. This makes the decision to investigate drug law reforms - that basically decriminalise drugs - even more significant. 

A drug addict is a sick person and he should be treated as such
-Brigadier General Maktoum al Sharifi: Head of Abu Dhabi Capital Police

You have to wonder why the UAE, who like surrounding nations have severe penalties for drug related crimes, would even consider these new reforms. Especially when other open, fully democratic and secular countries like Australia, remain fixated on useless, failed and cruel drug polices, dreamed up many decades ago.

Current drug laws in the UAE are harsh and counterproductive and there is a mandatory four year prison term for anyone found to have a connection with illicit drugs. But many officials in the UAE agree that the current laws are flawed. The Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court of First Instance, Saeed Abdul Baseer, said that he would prefer to send patients to rehabilitation centres or give them lesser sentences, but that he was restricted by the law. 

I would be very happy to give them lesser sentence or send them to rehabilitation centres. It is not an easy thing to sentence a young offender to four years in prison. But I have to follow the law.
--Saeed Abdul Baseer: Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court.

Hopefully, drug law reform will happen in the near future and serve as a reminder to other governments that rubber stamping failed drug policies, year after year, not only cause more problems than it fixes but is pointless and inhumane. There are alternatives to punitive drug laws which are based on evidence and research and it is the role of elected governments to implement these policies if it’s beneficial to their constituents. Unfortunately, politics is a fickle game with many players more focussed on winning the popularity prize instead of maintaining a fair, civil society for the benefit of all.

When countries like the UAE - that traditionally support Zero Tolerance drug policies - start contemplating the removal of strict drug laws because they are flawed and inhumane, you know that global attitudes are changing. But when the proposed changes are backed up with evidence and research, it should put enormous pressure on other countries to follow suit especially considering the massive damage caused every day by existing laws. 

Those still calling out for tougher drug laws really need to be questioned about their motives. Locally, we are witnessing a surge in politicians who are implementing even more draconian drug laws without sufficient scrutiny from opposition political parties and the media. But what is most disturbing about this current push for tougher drug laws are the reasons used by our elected politicians to support their case. To put it bluntly, they are mostly using misinformation, popular myths and outright lies in their attempts to fool the public. Where’s the scrutiny and the demands to reveal their source of information? Why isn’t the media asking them to explain why their claims are contradictory to the latest research and evidence? The fact is that most claims by politicians who are pushing for tougher drug laws are wrong and this helps to keep the public misguided about effective solutions. Previous propaganda masters like Chris Pyne, John Howard, Bronwyn Bishop etc. are being joined by Mike Rann, Colin Barnett and Ted Ballieu as part of a deceitful, agenda driven group who are prepared to mislead the public about drugs. It’s incredibly frustrating to hear elected officials like Michael Mischin, Christian Porter, John Brumby, Michael Atkinson, Steve Fielding, Peter Debnam, Nicola Roxon, Andrew Stoner, Mary Wooldridge, Peter Wellington, Mark McArdle, Michael Wright etc. make unsubstantiated claims when it would only take 15 minutes on the internet to find the facts. No other issue has ever attracted so many people who are willing to publicly lie even though the truth is just a few clicks away via Google. It may have worked before the advent of the internet but the ability to check facts almost instantly, should pressure politicians to substantiate their claims before they are exposed as frauds. If only other politicians and the media would be brave enough to expose them.


Overhaul Of UAE Drug Laws Considered
Haneen Dajani and Hassan Hassan (Courts and Justice Reporter)
Jan 2011

ABU DHABI // An overhaul of the nation’s drug laws could mean offenders no longer face prison sentences.

Anti-drugs officials told The National that Sheikh Saif bin Zayed, the Minister of Interior and Deputy Prime Minister, had ordered all concerned authorities to evaluate current anti-narcotics laws and suggest reforms.

Generally, the overhaul will consider new methods to punish or treat convicts, especially repeat offenders, such as social and community services.

Brig Gen Maktoum al Sharifi, the head of Abu Dhabi Capital Police, welcomed the idea of reforms, saying the law should not consider a drug offender a criminal, as it currently does.

“A drug addict is a sick person and he should be treated as such,” Brig Gen al Sharifi said. “Alternative punishment would be more effective. A drug offender could be just an addict, not a criminal, but after locking him up for years he could come out involved in crimes such as stealing, drug dealing, et cetera.”

Alternative punishments police have proposed include community service, such as cleaning the streets, schools or voluntary work.

Major reforms proposed by rehabilitation centres include allowing family members to turn in drug offenders to avoid prosecution. Currently, only if abusers themselves seek rehabilitation will they avoid going to jail.

“Addicts would be under the influence of drugs and would not think clearly, so those around them should be allowed to help them,” said Dr Hamad al Ghafiri, the general director of the National Rehabilitation Centre (NRC) in Abu Dhabi. “We want to encourage people to seek treatment, so we should assure them that they will not face prison for doing so.”

Another major reform, Dr al Ghafiri said, would be the creation of a data-tracking system that would link clinics across the nation to avoid prescription “shopping”. He said many patients had used old prescriptions for addiction-treatment medicines provided by the NRC to obtain extra doses by visiting different clinics across the country. Abu Dhabi, he said, had already linked its clinics and pharmacies.

Experts said drug offenders were usually treated as criminals rather than victims or even patients.

Saeed Abdul Baseer, the Chief Justice of Abu Dhabi Criminal Court of First Instance, said that he would prefer to send patients to rehabilitation centres or give them lesser sentences, but that he was restricted by the law. The minimum sentence for drug crimes is four years – a regulation especially punitive to expatriates who cannot be admitted to rehabilitation centres.

“I would be very happy to give them lesser sentence or send them to rehabilitation centres,” the chief justice said. “It is not an easy thing to sentence a young offender to four years in prison. But I have to follow the law.” 
Faiza Moussa, a lawyer who deals with drug cases, said jail sentences were not an effective deterrent.

“Drug addiction is more of a psychological problem,” Mrs Moussa said. “I dealt with defendants who lapsed too many times. They go to prison and then they are released, they would have been properly coached or rehabilitated.”

She suggested toxins should be removed from the body of drug offenders before considering any punishment. After removing toxins, she said, the offender should be referred to a specialist, who would try to turn them away from lapsing back into drug use. She also suggested jails should have workshops to train inmates on how to be a productive member of society after leaving prison.

“Most of drug addicts are either unemployed, uneducated or with social problems,” she said. “If they teach him a certain profession to start a business after they leave prison, I think most of them would not return to drugs.” 


Related Articles:

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Do Politicians Read the Papers?

UPDATED

Over the last few days, several Australian newspapers have published some amazing articles, exposing our flawed drug policies. Each article goes into some detail about the government’s out-of-date mindset where over simplified strategies rule the day. These are intelligent, logical and well researched articles that should be a wakeup call for policies makers both here in Australia and abroad.


But Australia is not the only country that is producing these important pieces with dozens of similar articles appearing every week around the globe. 

UN Investigator Says Drug War Ignores Rights; Can't Cure Dependency
The Associated Press
October 2010

NEW YORK, N.Y. - The UN independent investigator promoting physical and mental health is urging decriminalization of narcotics use, saying punishment and sanctions don’t cure drug dependency.
Anand Grover, a well-known lawyer from India, also says that the war on drugs has ignored drug users’ human rights.

Grover is the UN Human Rights Council’s special rapporteur on physical and mental health.

On Monday he told the General Assembly committee dealing with rights issues that people who use drugs may not get the health care they need for fear of being arrested, or may be denied health care if they seek help.

Compared to just a few years ago, the international media is now full of support for rationalising global drug laws  A quick Google search will list hundreds of articles where respected opinion writers and experts have voiced their concern about the ongoing drug war and the effect it’s having on our society. These articles are not like the once abundant, anti-drug scare campaigns but are insightful and often evidence based. If politicians are used to citing the media to back their "Tough on Drugs" policies then surely they should adapt to include these far more logical articles that are actually based on reality, evidence and facts.

Swiss Drug Policy Should Serve As Model: Experts
By Stephanie Nebehay
October 2010

Switzerland's innovative policy of providing drug addicts with free methadone and clean needles has greatly reduced deaths while cutting crime rates and should serve as a global model, health experts said on Monday.

Countries whose drug policy remains focused on punishing offenders, including Russia and much of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, should learn from a Swiss strategy based on "harm reduction" that protects both users and communities, they said.

Even Iran and China -- while far from espousing Switzerland's system of direct democracy -- have copied its methadone substitution programs, they added.

Sunday, 20 December 2009

Czech Republic Decriminalises Heroin, Cocaine, Meth etc. for Personal Use

First Portugal, then Mexico and now The Czech Republic have decriminalised personal amounts of all illicit drugs. Effective from January 1, 2010, anyone caught with less than a nominated amount of any drug will be issued with a fine instead of a possible jail term. Although an increasing number of countries are turning a blind eye to small amounts of drugs for personal use, only a few have actually made it law. With a growing awareness to the carnage caused by the "War on Drugs" and it’s failure to even meet basic goals, many countries are re-evaluating their drug policies especially in relation to users.

One clear advantage of the new laws in The Czech Republic is that the quantity allowed before it becomes a criminal offence is higher and more realistic than other countries. There was some criticism of the recent Mexican decriminalisation laws that the limits set were not reflective of real world drug use. Looking through the quantities used by The Czech Republic, they appear to have got it fairly much right.

One interesting aspect of the new Czech decriminalisation laws is the omission of compulsory drug treatment for anyone caught wiht drugs. For too long now, the trend of sending users to treatment instead of jail has been used for politicial point scoring. Valuable and much-in-demand treatment spots are often taken by those forced into compulsory treatment programs by drug courts whether they need it or not. Most drug courts assume all drug users need treatment and forcing them into a program will be a magical cure. I must take my hat off to the Czechs for showing some common sense and being brave enough to disregard the misguided practice of forced treatment.

Govt Clarifies Rules On Possession Of Drugs
Prague Daily Monitor
December 2009

Prague, Dec 14 (CTK) - The Czech government Monday set the drug possession limits under which the possession of up to 1.5 grammes of heroin, up to one gramme of cocaine and up to two grammes of methamphetamine (pervitine) will not be punishable as of New Year.

Czechs will also be able to legally possess up to 15 grammes of marijuana, according to the Justice Ministry's proposal approved by the government Monday.

Justice Minister Daniela Kovarova drafted the proposal on the basis of the current court practice.

Kovarova told CTK that last week the authors of the proposal met experts and agreed that the limits used in the current court practice were acceptable.

Initially, the proposal allowed for the legal possession of up to two grammes of hard drugs, she said.

"The government finally decided that it would stick to the current court practice and drafted a table based on these limits," Kovarova said.

Kovarova and Interior Minister Martin Pecina were charged today with assessing the functioning of the new rules after some time.

A week ago, the government approved the list of hallucinogenic plants and mushrooms, including hemp, coca, mescaline cactus and magic mushrooms, and decided that people would be allowed to grow up to five pieces of such plants and keep 40 magic mushrooms at home.

Shortly after the list was released, Czech cacti growers voiced concern about the new government's directive which set limits to growing plants containing mescaline.

Mescaline is a type of hallucinogen which is illegal in most countries.

The growers of cacti intend to hand over a petition to the government that has been signed by 450 people already.

"Many cacti growers have been immediately criminalised with the approval of the limits set by the Justice Ministry as there are some 4000 types of cacti in the world and some of them can contain a certain amount of mescaline," the organisers of the petition which has been placed on the Internet say.

Kovarova today assured cacti growers that they would not be prosecuted.

She said that growing plants that can be used for illegal drug production is a crime under the valid penal law already.

She pointed out that the government's directives would not have a negative impact on cacti growers as cultivating cacti for scientific and botanical purposes does not harm the interests which the Penal Code protects.

She said that cacti growers could ask the Health Ministry for a permission to grow plants for scientific or botanical purposes.

The government's directive will be specified by the new Penal Code that will take effect on January 1.

The code contains a special provision on the growth of hemp and magic mushrooms.

So far, the tolerated amount of drugs in people's possession has been defined by police internal directives and it was unclear what amount of drugs in personal possession is considered an amount "larger than a small one," which is punishable by the law.

The government's directive concerns the possession of the following drugs:
Pervitine (methamphetamine) - more than two grammes
Heroin  -  more than 1.5 grammes
Cocaine  -  more than one gramme
Amphetamine  -  more than two grammes
Ecstasy  -  more than four tablets
Marijuana  -  more than 15 grammes
Hashish  -  more than five grammes
Magic mushrooms etc.  -  more than 40 pieces
LSD  -  five tablets


Related Articles:
UN vs UN - Decriminalising Drug Use and Human Rights Abuse
WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981
Danes Consider Dutch Style Cannabis Shops
Like Lambs to the Slaughter
Mexico Decriminalises All Drugs (for small amounts) - The Start of a Trend in South America?
5 Grams of Heroin Sends You to Jail
Now We Have Proof - Decriminalising Drugs Works


Thursday, 29 October 2009

UN vs UN - Decriminalising Drug Use and Human Rights Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright 2007 by monstersandcritics.com


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



Monday, 31 August 2009

Mexico Decriminalises All Drugs (for small amounts) - The Start of a Trend in South America?

Last week, the Mexican government signed into law, the decriminalisation of small amounts of drugs including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, methamphetamines, cannabis, LSD etc. The law slipped through quietly with virtually no media uproar or condemnation as the country remained focussed on the bigger drug war involving the cartels. Most surprising was the lack of response from the US government. In 2006, an almost identical bill passed by congress was not signed by the Mexican president, Vicente Fox at the last moment after pressure from the Bush administration. The US Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske remains unusually quiet compared to his hard core predecessors and when questioned, said he will, “wait and see”.


A few days later, Agentina’s supreme court ruled that penalising people for using cannabis when it didn’t effect anyone else, was unconstitutional. Is this the start of a new trend in South America that rejects the strict prohibitionist strategies of the last 40 years? Is South America leading a revolt against the US stranglehold on the UNODC and world drug policies? Has South America had enough of being a scapegoat for the US and their insatiable hunger for illicit drugs? But not all countries in South America are in a hurry to distance themselves from Washington. A few weeks ago, Colombia signed an agreement with the United States allowing them to use local military bases for continuing drug operations. Columbia already has a strained relationship with neighbouring countries over it’s US ties and a move to allow the DEA and the CIA to use their military bases has been deplored by most South American leaders. Venezuela and Ecuador currently do not have diplomatic relations with Columbia.


Argentina And Legalizing Pot
The Week
August 2009

Argentina follows Mexico toward decriminalizing marijuana. What does this mean for the war on drugs?

The war on drugs is getting complicated, said Jacob Sullum in Reason. Argentina’s Supreme Court ruled that it’s unconstitutional to punish adults for private marijuana use, a big step toward decriminalizing the drug. The ruling is based on the “privacy clause” of Argentina’s constitution—private pot use doesn’t “offend public order or morality”—but it comes just days after Mexico eliminated criminal penalties for holding small amounts of drugs. And Brazil and Ecuador are close behind.

That’s not a coincidence, said Alexi Barrionuevo in The New York Times. From Mexico to Argentina there’s “an urgent desire to reject decades of American prescriptions for distinctly Latin American challenges,” including drugs. In February, ex-presidents of Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia called the U.S. “war on drugs” a “failure,” and urged Latin America to adopt the less-punitive “drug policies found in some European countries.”

The report from the three leaders may be a “big factor” in the Argentine ruling, said Joshua Keating in Foreign Policy, as well as the region’s “major rethink on drug policy.” But it “remains to be seen” if it will have any impact north of the border. U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is taking a “wait-and-see attitude,” but President Obama has too much on his plate to “touch drug policy right now.”

Latin American leaders, especially in Mexico, wish he would, said Katie Hammel in Gadling. But while a drug policy that focuses “more on reducing harm to drug users and society” wouldn’t be a new approach to the war on drugs, I don’t see it happening “any time soon” in the U.S. Meanwhile, I’ll “stick to booze.”

Wednesday, 1 July 2009

2009 U.N. World Drug Report - What’s All The Fuss?

Never before has the UN Drug World Report been discussed and written about so much. The internet has certainly helped fuel the debate and make strong opinions available but the real driving force is the change of attitude towards the "War on Drugs". Where once you were deemed a bit nutty or an obvious druggie by calling for legalisation, it is now common place for media outlets to have a least one article calling for a change in drug policy. This huge shift in thinking has obviously affected the UN which is renown for their strict, US style, zero tolerance stance on drug use. The rhetoric is still thick and their mixed message remains illogical but the latest World Drug Report is the most compassionate and pragmatic public statement to date. The big question remains though - will governments (especially the US) change their drug policies and laws? Will those countries that use the UN as an excuse to implement harsh drug laws remain faithful to the UN or will they selectively choose to ignore the latest message? I can’t see Russia suddenly introducing methadone or China, Singapore and Indonesia halting their executions of drug dealers. Nor can I envisage countries like Japan, the UK or France reducing their reliance on law and order and making drug use more of a health issue. Even locally in Australia, it’s a big stretch to imagine the current Rudd government having an honest debate about drug use or to have a shift in thinking that focusses on treatment rather than incarceration. Suddenly, the Greens and Democrats drug policies are looking more realistic and those politicians who ridiculed them so aggressively are looking more like the ignorant, self serving meat-heads that they are. Listed below are several articles that give some insight into what the 314 page report entails. First up is an overview from TIME Magazine in it’s entirety. Following that are the first few paragraphs of each article. Click the [more] link for the entire article. U.N. World Drug Report TIME By M.J. Stephey June 2009
The Gist: This year's report from the U.N.'s Office on Drugs and Crime did something that last year's did not: it addressed the "growing chorus" of people in favor of abolishing drug laws altogether. And though its authors maintain that legalizing narcotics would be an "epic mistake," the office's executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, does agree that loosening regulations might not be such a bad idea: "You can't have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933." Highlight Reel: 1. On cocaine and heroin trafficking: "The $50 billion global cocaine market is undergoing seismic shifts. Purity levels and seizures are down, prices are up, and consumption patterns are in flux. This may explain the gruesome upsurge of violence in countries like Mexico ... While 41 % of the world's cocaine is being seized (mostly in Colombia), only one-fifth (19%) of all opiates are being intercepted ... In 2007, Iran seized 84% of the world's opium and 28% of all heroin." 2. On moving beyond "reactive law enforcement": "Those who take the "drug war" metaphor literally may feel this effort is best advanced by people in uniform with guns [but] in the end, the criminal-justice system is a very blunt instrument for dealing with drug markets ... the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals is an extremely slow, expensive and labor-intensive process." 3. On targeting the right people in cracking down on drug dealing: "Street drug markets do not exist in a vacuum. The drama is played out on a very particular kind of stage, and it is the stage manager, not the actors, that must be addressed. The property in these areas is owned by someone, someone whose neglect of their property allows illicit activity to continue. Unlike the street addicts and gang members, this someone has something of value to lose — their property." See a graphic on addiction and the brain. 4. On scrapping the one-size-fits-all approach: "There is a common tendency to treat the galaxy of illicit substances as an undifferentiated mass. Different drugs come from different places, attract different consumers, and are associated with different problems ... For example, cannabis is grown in at least 176 countries around the world. It can be grown indoors or outdoors, and is often cultivated in small plots by users themselves ... For most synthetic drugs, the skills needed to access and process the needed chemicals are not widely spread and, consequently, the market tends to favor more organized groups ... In contrast, most of the cultivation of drug crops like coca and opium poppy is confined to small areas within two or three countries. Most of the world's heroin supply is produced on a land area about the size of Greater London." The Lowdown: "It all started in Shanghai in 1909," the authors note of the dawn of narcotics regulation. And what a century it's been. What began as an opium epidemic in China has since become a global problem that includes heroin, cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines and a host of other illicit substances that compose a $320 billion–a–year industry, making drugs one of the most valuable commodities in the world. But despite arguments that legalizing drugs would destroy the organized-crime rings that currently control the market, the report argues that "mafia coffers are equally nourished by the trafficking of arms, people and their organs, by counterfeiting and smuggling, racketeering and loan-sharking, kidnapping and piracy, and by violence against the environment." As Costa said in a statement announcing the report's release, "It is no longer sufficient to say: no to drugs. We have to state an equally vehement: no to crime." The Verdict: Skim.
UN Backs Drug Decriminalization In World Drug Report The Huffington Post By Ryan Grim
In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism." But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased." [more]
Drug Czar Kerlikowske Addresses Un Report On Success Of Decriminalization, Without Mentioning Decriminalization NORML By Russ Belville
The remarks from our Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on the release of the UN 2009 World Drug Report, which endorsed drug decriminalization in a reversal of previous policy. Guess which 17-letter D-word never gets mentioned once in our “drug czar’s” 781-word statement? Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. The UN notes that decriminalization in Portugal “keep[s] drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users” and “It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased.” [more]
World Drug Report Preface Majors On Legalisation Transform
Below is the text from the Preface to World Drug Report 2009 - dominated by a detailed rebuttal of the growing calls for a debate on legal regulation of drug production and supply. We have deconstructed these kind of critiques so many times before, we won’t be doing it again here - other than to observe it is the same confused mix of misrepresentations, straw man arguments, and logical fallacies that we are used to hearing from the UNODC's drug warriors. The particularly strange thing here though is that some of the analysis of the problem, the critique at least, is actually fairly good - it's where it leads that is so extraordinary.... [more]
World Drugs In Graphics BBC News
A UN agency has published a comprehensive report on the worldwide illicit drugs market, the World Drug Report 2009. The graphs and maps below show the extent of the problem and measures to tackle it. [more]
BETWEEN THE LINES As usual, the UN Drug World Report is full of praise for their own contribution to another successful year in the fight against drugs. How they qualify a success is up for debate. Once again, the UN has the drug situation under control and the projection of a better outcome next time remains a permanent promise. The report is contradictory and contains some gapping holes in logic but if you read closely, the statistics form the real picture. Production Levels The production of some drugs is down in some countries and in others, it is up. It’s the same every year. An added factor is that customs only stop about less than 20% of drug imports. In other words, drugs are readily available to anyone who seeks them ... just like last year and the year before etc.
Opium cultivation in Afghanistan, where 93% of the world's opium is grown, declined 19% in 2008, according to the UN world drug report. In Colombia, which produces half of the world's cocaine, cultivation of coca fell 18% while production declined 28% compared with 2007. Global coca production, at 845 tonnes, was said to be at a five-year low, despite some increases in cultivation in Peru and Bolivia... [...] His call for international law enforcement to target traffickers rather than users came as it was announced that there is a worldwide growth in synthetic drugs. -The Guardian
Cannabis Potency Straight from the horse’s mouth - cannabis potency has doubled in the US over the last 10 years. The claims of 10 to 30 times stronger are as ridiculous as they first sounded.
Cannabis remains the most widely cultivated and used drug around the world, although estimates are less precise. Data also show that it is more harmful than commonly believed, said the report. The average THC content (the harmful psychotropic component) of hydroponic marijuana in North America almost doubled in the past decade. "This has major health implications as evidenced by a significant rise in the number of people seeking treatment," said the report. -The Guardian
Drug Use From the UN’s figures, only 10-15% of users have a drug problem. At most, that’s 38 million out of 250 million drug users worldwide.
UNODC estimates that between 172 and 250 million persons used illicit drugs at least once in the past year in 2007. But these large figures include many casual consumers who may have tried drugs only once in the whole year. It is important, therefore, to also have estimates of the number of people who are heavy or “problematic” drug users. This group consumes most of the drugs used each year; they are very likely to be dependent upon drugs, would benefit from treatment, and many of the impacts upon public health and public order are likely to be affected by their levels of use. Estimates made by UNODC suggest that there were between 18 and 38 million problem drug users aged 15-64 years in 2007. -2009 UN Drug World Report
Increase in Cannabis Treatment The UN reports that there are between 143 and 190 million people who used cannabis in the previous 12 months. It should be noted that most of those being treated for cannabis are involuntary patients or are doing so to placate the law, employers or family. Also, most of those have not smoked cannabis in the prior month which is unusual for something that is supposed to be addictive. Decriminalisation Works The UN has always strongly been opposed to decriminalisation. When Portugal first decriminalised small amounts of drugs, the UN predicted chaos would follow and have been critical ever since. This year they have nothing but praise for the success of Portugal’s actions.
In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal's decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage "drug tourism." But in its 2009 World Drug Report, the UN had little but kind words for Portugal's radical (by U.S. standards) approach. "These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal's policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism," reads the report. "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased." -The Huffington Post
Treatment vs Criminality Harsh drug laws has always been at the core of the UN’s drug policy. Treatment was always a secondary issue compared to arrest and tough policing. The well being of users including those with HIV/AIDS, has generally been overlooked for fear of Harm Minimisation programs like needle exchanges, safe injection clinics and heroin assisted treatment (HAT). It’s funny how public opinion and the media can change the minds of the UN so quickly.
In the end, the criminal justice system instrument for dealing with drug marke as the deterrent threat remains, the arre and incarceration of individuals is an expensive, and labour intensive process. -2009 UN Drug World Report
First, drug use should be treated as an illness. “People who take drugs need medical help, not criminal retribution,” said Mr. Costa. He appealed for universal access to drug treatment. Since people with serious drug problems provide the bulk of drug demand, treating this problem is one of the best ways of shrinking the market. [...] Fourth, he called for greater efficiency in law enforcement. He encouraged police to focus on the small number of high profile, high volume, and violent criminals instead of the large volumes of petty offenders. In some countries, the ratio of people imprisoned for drug use compared to drug trafficking is 5:1. “This is a waste of money for the police, and a waste of lives for those thrown in jail. Go after the piranhas, not the minnows,” said Mr. Costa. -UN Press Release
THE LAST WORD
The UNODC will go through its annual charade of telling the world that it has 'contained' the drug problem and that they finally have organised crime gangs in their sights. But even their own propaganda cannot disguise the shocking long-term failure of international drug control efforts or disguise the fact that the UNODC oversees the system that gifts the vast illegal drug market to violent criminal profiteers, with disastrous consequences. -Danny Kushlick, Head of Policy at Transform

Monday, 27 April 2009

Now We Have Proof - Decriminalising Drugs Works

UPDATE The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. [read more...] -The Portuguese Experiment: Did Legalizing Drugs Work? - Time One of the main arguments against drug legalisation/decriminalisation is that drug use will explode and the planets will collide causing chaos on earth. The fact that most illicit drugs are already easily available should dump this theory on it’s head but there will always be uncertainty until it is tested. Adding to the debate was an interesting discovery where American teenagers said it was more difficult to buy alcohol and cigarettes than it was to obtain illegal drugs. The saturation of illicit drugs already in the market place is often overlooked by the doomsday crowd when it comes to the fear of increased use caused by legalisation or decriminalisation but conveniently reappears in other arguments. Common sense tells us that repeating the same current strategies expecting a different result is pointless and a new approach is warranted but until some country or state tests it, we can never really be sure. Portugal were fairly sure the planets would remain in their place when they decided in 2001 to implement a new policy of decriminalisation for small amounts of all drugs. With a rising drug problem, over flowing prisons and an increased demand on police resources, Portugal had grown frustrated that low level users were making up the bulk of drug arrests. The decision to decriminalise small amounts of drugs was a bold move and probably a necessary one if Portugal were serious about finding a better solution to their drug problem. That was over 8 years ago and now we have a detailed report on the results.
None of the fears promulgated by opponents of Portuguese decriminalization has come to fruition, whereas many of the benefits predicted by drug policymakers from instituting a decriminalization regime have been realized. While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001 -Glenn Greenwald
Some quick facts. Since Portugal decriminalised small amounts of drugs in 2001: •The number of users in Portugal has decreased in various age groups whilst it has increased in most EU states. •Rates of drug use in Portugal is lower than most EU states. Some EU states now have drug use rates that are double and triple that of Portugal •Opiate related deaths have more than halved in Portugal •Teen marijuana use in Portugal has nearly halved •Large increase in users seeking treatment Read an extract from the Glenn Greenwald’s whitepaper.
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies by Glenn Greenwald Cato Institute EXTRACT Conclusion: None of the fears promulgated by opponents of Portuguese decriminalization has come to fruition, whereas many of the benefits predicted by drug policymakers from instituting a decriminalization regime have been realized. While drug addiction, usage, and associated pathologies continue to skyrocket in many EU states, those problems—in virtually every relevant category—have been either contained or measurably improved within Portugal since 2001. In certain key demographic segments, drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the decriminalization framework, even as usage across the EU continues to increase, including in those states that continue to take the hardest line in criminalizing drug possession and usage. By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts. Those developments, along with Portugal’s shift to a harm-reduction approach, have dramatically improved drug- related social ills, including drug-caused mortalities and drug-related disease transmission. Ideally, treatment programs would be strictly voluntary, but Portugal’s program is certainly preferable to criminalization. The Portuguese have seen the benefits of decriminalization, and therefore there is no serious political push in Portugal to return to a criminalization framework. Drug policy makers in the Portuguese government are virtually unanimous in their belief that decriminalization has enabled a far more effective approach to managing Portugal’s addiction problems and other drug-related afflictions. Since the available data demonstrate that they are right, the Portuguese model ought to be carefully considered by policymakers around the world.
Related Articles: The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal More on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal Portugal's drug decriminalization 'bizarrely underappreciated': Greenwald

Tuesday, 9 December 2008

More Marijuana Decriminalisation

To the dismay of some, another state in the US has decriminalised marijuana. Massachusetts voted 2 to 1 in favour of marijuana decriminalisation and this is a first for this law to be passed by voter initiative. The governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state were all opposed to it but it seems that reefer madness is on it’s last legs. You can only lie to the public for so long before the reality factor takes over. It only took 70 years. Massachusetts is now the 13th state in the US to have such laws. I feel sad for the dismayed group who opposed this law because they have lost another battle to common sense and rational policies, even though they tried their damnedest to deceive the public. We should all display some humanity here and spare a thought for the bastards who wanted first time offenders and non violent crimes treated with jail and a life long criminal record. OK, thought spared ... so congratulations to Massachusetts for a pragmatic and sensible drug policy. Well done. What about decriminalisation in Australia? Why is there a push to rescind decriminalisation laws in WA and SA when clearly it is an on going trend to do the opposite worldwide? Will it take another 70 years for Australia? Ah, politicians...
Massachusetts Voters OK Decriminalization of Marijuana -David Abel / Globe Staff Boston Globe November 2008 Massachusetts voters today approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying as many as dozens of marijuana cigarettes will no longer be reported to the state’s criminal history board. “The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy,” said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. “They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense.” The proposition will become law 30 days after it’s reported to the Governor’s Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they've done with some prior laws passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley. The Associated Press called the outcome at about 9:20 p.m. The proposition will require those younger than age 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program. Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record. They also argued it would save the state millions of law enforcement dollars and match similar marijuana possession laws in 12 states, all of which have adopted some form of decriminalization. The opponents, who included the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence. The opponents said that most of those charged with marijuana possession are arrested for other reasons, such as driving under the influence or possessing a more potent drug like crack cocaine. They also said most people arrested for marijuana possession have their records cleared within six months.

Saturday, 6 September 2008

Decriminalisation Pushes On

Should someone who has a small quantity of marijuana be open to the threat of jail? What about the tens of thousands of people who go to night clubs every week and take ecstasy? These drugs are much less harmful than alcohol yet drinking dangerous levels of rocket fuel is legal which often results in violence, accidents and self inflicted harm. One of the sad facts of living under drug prohibition is the many laws that penalise the small time recreational drug user or addict. Some countries like the USA can ruin your life for simply possessing less than a gram of cannabis e.g. half a joint.
In the USA, we have laws, both Federal and state, preventing those with any type of drug conviction from EVER obtaining housing assistance, food stamps, welfare, or student loans. This does not apply to murderers, rapists or child molesters--just drug convictions. In addition, in my state, my right to vote was removed." -Kerry Wolf. ARMMAT - Texas
Although the US has the highest drug use in the world, it also has some of the harshest drug laws. Drug screening for potential employees is common place and there is drug testing in some schools. The US government and some states take a strong stance on drug users and often impose an extra burden to an already difficult transition back into society. Once you have a drug record, you may permanently lose some government issued services like student loans, welfare and even the right to vote.
So many times I have seen the women I was incarcerated with lose custody of their kids or get re-incarcerated simply because they could not meet the requirements of probation fast enough, such as getting a job that pays enough money for you to supply yourself with housing suitable for you and several kids, (and no sharing bedrooms for kids of opposite genders or with the parent, so you may well need several bedrooms), plenty of food, clothing, pay all your bills, pay your probation fees and fines, any class fees you are obligated to take, and much more, and you cannot get food stamps or housing assistance, because you might spend it on DRUGS, and if you want to go back to school to better yourself, again, sorry--no student loans for druggies (this varies by state--some states opt out). It just makes it almost impossible for these folks to get back on their feet. -Kerry Wolf. ARMMAT - Texas
Strategies like mandatory sentencing and the 3 strikes rule were supposed to deal with career criminals but instead have plagued the countries and states that have implemented them, especially the US. The US has almost 50% of all people on parole or in prison on drugs charges with nearly one in eight prisoners in jail for marijuana related offences. Prisons are big business for the Americans with 1 in 32 of their citizens in jail, on probation or on parole and 1 in 100 actually in prison. Per capita, they have more prisoners than any other nation on earth including China and Iran. Many countries are now trying to minimise the damage that current laws inflict on recreational users by decriminalising small quantities for personal use. The burden of processing minor drug charges like cannabis possession also has many law officers supportive of decriminalisation. Recently, Argentinan, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner repeated her call to decriminalise personal drug use and instead crack down on traffickers and dealers.
I don't like it when people easily condemn someone who has an addiction as if he were a criminal, as if he were a person who should be persecuted -Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - President of Argentina
Two years ago, the Mexican President Vicente Fox proposed decriminalising drug possession but was forced to back down by the Bush administration. Brazil and Colombia have already decriminalised drugs for personal use and it is a growing trend in Latin America. Though many European countries have already decriminalised drugs for personal use, new, more liberal laws and attitudes are starting to take shape. Recently, Austria has effectively removed the limits on personal use for drugs by totally separating trafficking and using. Although cannabis possession is still not legal but decriminalised in Austria, a man was put on 2 years probation for having 10Kg of cannabis leaves because the judge was convinced he never intended to sell it. One of the problems with decriminalisation is of course, the elephant. That elephant in the room called the drug dealer who is needed to get your drugs. But by using some European ingenuity and a close look at the law, the pot club was born. The first association of cannabis growers was created in Belgium which took drug dealing for money out of the equation. The members combine their efforts to either take turns at growing or having one large crop that has the total maximum allowed per person. A case in Spain was recently tested in court and given the judges nod for 66 members of a Spanish pot club.
Cannabis Clubs in Spain Legal - Belgium Forms 1st Club Recently Canna Zine 18 August 2008 Recently several charitable "cannabis clubs" were founded in Spain. The lawfulness of which are now confirmed, and sanctioned by courts in Catalonia and the Basque region. People join the cannabis clubs to grow cannabis together and distribute it to members of the club at cost price. Only members have access to the growing rooms and the cannabis. In Spain trade with cannabis is prohibited, but possession for personal use is legal. Its a European Dis-Union so far as cannabis is concerned. In Spain you may grow your own supply thus keeping you away from those nast drug-dealing types, but doing the same thing in the UK is liable to see you convicted on a 5 stretch. So what exactly is the point of Europe? A court in Bilbao, the biggest city of the Basque region, cleared four defendants of a cannabis club with 66 members from the prosecution of illegal cultivation of 150 kg of cannabis (fresh whole plants that resulted in 17.4 kg dried cannabis). 39 members use cannabis for medical purposes. ENCOD (European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies) , a European organisation for the change of the drug laws regards the Spanish cannabis clubs as a model for other countries. Recently the first association of cannabis growers was created in Belgium. As in Spain the possession of cannabis for personal use in Belgium, is legal. Isn't it about time your government acted out a similar law change?
While some countries consider the well being and rights of their citizens as important, others do not. Recently in the UK, the Brown government upgraded cannabis to a class B drug, up from class C, increasing the penalties for minor cannabis possession from a verbal warning to a maximum of five years in prison. Even though cannabis use dropped while being a lesser class C drug, politics again won out over evidence and facts. But did it win? Those in the front lines away from the leather chairs and back room deals of the so called leaders, had different ideas. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) declared that they would not be changing their tactics and cannabis for personal use would remain a low priority.
Police will not adopt a tougher approach to cases of simple possession of cannabis when ministers upgrade the legal status of the drug to class B, the Guardian can disclose.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) confirmed last night that the current policy of "confiscate and warn" would continue, despite Gordon Brown's determination to reclassify the drug in an attempt to "send a tough message" to young people about its use -Guardian News. U.K.
Australia is another country that is turning the clock back against world trends. Although several Australian states had made progress by decriminalising cannabis, some politicians are trying to revert back to the well worn out path of zero tolerance on all users. It’s a damn shame that politicians and moral crusaders will selfishly sacrifice the futures and careers of our youth for personal gain. With the recent admission to smoking cannabis from several Australian politicians, one has to wonder if it is a matter of what’s good for us is not good for you.

Wednesday, 27 August 2008

WA Liberals Become Even Sillier

Why do we take take these people seriously? The WA Libs have already made some remarkable comments about repealling sensible cannabis laws (that have have beening working) because of some idelogy clap trap about that old furphy, “Sending the wrong message”. I’m sorry , but this just doesn’t cut it today and is just shameless politics expoliting the drug issue.

Now Opposition youth affairs spokeswoman ‘Dippy’ Donna Faragher has condemded the WA government for appointing Criminal lawyer Paul Roth as a magistrate. Why? because he once stood as an independent candidate on a pro-Australian Marijuana Party platform. That was back in the 1998 federal election. What Dippy Donna fails to explain is that The Australian Marijuana Party and other pro legalisation groups don’t want marijuana sold at 7-11s or the corner store but regulated and taxed like the far more dangerous drug, alcohol. If she was really concerned with youth affairs or “sending the wrong message”, she should also be critical of anyone who supports the legal sale of alcohol. Youth binge drinking (in the real sense not Kevin’s new definition) causes far more damage than marijuana use and to single out Paul Roth’s involvement in a group that would actual improve the health of people, is political posturing at it’s finest.

I would suggest that shows another soft-on-drugs attitude of this Government. I would not think a member of a former party involved with cannabis sends a very good message. We'll see what he does as a magistrate, but my view is we cannot take a soft-on-drugs attitude.
-Donna Faragher: W.A. opposition youth affairs spokeswoman

Does DD really mean, “sensible on drugs”? How does a rational policy that is supported by most experts, deemed to be negative? The answer is always the same - when it’s political. Colin Barnett, DD and co. are not just playing the usual game of sleazy politics but are playing with people’s lives. Their attempt to use drug hysteria as a tool to win office is selfish and dangerous. It might be amusing that these so called leaders still live in a world of medieval science and continue to use worn out phrases like “sending the wrong message” but the fact is they will cause a lot of damage to families and society.

This is about protecting our community and taking the issue of drugs seriously, rather than treat it as a joke the way Labor has since 2001.
-Donna Faragher: W.A. opposition youth affairs spokeswoman

They want to wind back evidence based policy, ruin thousands of lives and put many drug users at risk of disease or even death. The question is - where’s your evidence? When repeatedly asked if marijuana use in WA had increased because of the current drug policy, Dippy Donna’s repeated reply was that it could lead to harder drugs. Yes, that gateway drug theory that was disproved many years ago was her reasoning. To continually repeat something that is false as a reason to change a policy that works and reduces wrecking people’s lives, is outrageous. Where’s Labor on this? Where’s the other political parties taking this bullshiter to task? She is lying in public for personal and political gain and not a word? Is this what it has come to in politics in WA?

For Donna Faragher this is not new and she has made similar comments previously. For repeating the fabrications, the question remains; is she ignorant of the facts or she is lying. Either way, she are not worthy of holding office ... a position of trust and responsibility.

Ample research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia and can be a gateway to harder drugs. This is about protecting our community and taking the issue of drugs seriously, rather than treat it as a joke in the way Labor has since 2001.
-Donna Faragher: W.A. opposition youth affairs spokeswoman

How can we, as a society put faith in someone who uses junk science as an argument against proper researched medical knowledge? Ample research? A gateway drug? This is laughable and it feels like a quote from the John Howard handbook of propaganda. And it seems I’m not the only one to notice either. Here is an interesting take of the situation at the Politics West blog - Barnett Just Says No

The depth of anti-drug rhetoric is deep in the Liberal party and they often crumble to pressure from the MSM. A local newspaper actually printed a picture of Paul Roth, the newly appointed magistrate at the centre of the controversy, in front of hundreds of bongs. Using junk science from trash media is all the evidence they need to put forward their flawed preconceived ideas. Sometimes, those ideas border on being so ridiculous that you must wonder about the fate of mankind under this buffoons.

The opposition claimed that about half the infringement notices would not be paid, because the people who received them would be too drunk, stoned, stupid or bombed out of their minds by some other substance to understand what they were meant to do.
-Simon O’Brien. W.A. deputy opposition leader. 2006

As Dippy Donna settles into retirement in many years time as Grandma Dippy Donna, she will be in the history books as one of the last wave of ignorant, self serving politicians who used the well being of her constituents to drum up drug hysteria for political gain. She may have regrets, she may not. For some, it might be easy to forget they were incompetent at the highest level or were lying to millions of people. In the end, history will decide.



Liberals Attack Pot-Platform Magistrate
Alana Buckley-Carr
August 13, 2008
The Australian


LIBERAL leader Colin Barnett promised yesterday to toughen Labor's "soft" drug laws as Attorney-General Jim McGinty refused to overturn the appointment of a magistrate with links to the Australian Marijuana Party.

Criminal lawyer Paul Roth was made a magistrate last week, but it has since been revealed he stood as an independent candidate in the 1998 federal election on a pro-Australian Marijuana Party platform. That included the legalisation of marijuana and licensing limited retail outlets to sell the drug.

Opposition youth affairs spokeswoman Donna Faragher yesterday condemned the Government and Mr McGinty for appointing Mr Roth.

"I would suggest that shows another soft-on-drugs attitude of this Government," Ms Faragher said. "I would not think a member of a former party involved with cannabis sends a very good message. We'll see what he does as a magistrate, but my view is we cannot take a soft-on-drugs attitude."

Speaking at a residential drug treatment facility in South Perth, Ms Faragher said a Liberal government would repeal current laws that allow police to fine cannabis users rather than charge them with a criminal offence.

Instead, a one-time cautioning system would apply. Drug paraphernalia would be banned from sale and stiffer penalties would be introduced for drug dealers who target children or manufacture drugs in a child's presence.

"This is about protecting our community and taking the issue of drugs seriously, rather than treat it as a joke the way Labor has since 2001," she said. "Over the past seven years, Labor has had ample opportunity to fix drug and related law-and-order issues but it has instead turned a blind eye."

Mr Barnett said the Government was sending the wrong message to young people that cannabis was a "social recreational drug". "It gave a sense that somehow drugs are acceptable -- I don't think they are acceptable," he said.

Mr McGinty said Mr Roth was recommended by a selection panel as the best candidate for the position. "The Solicitor-General's advice was that past political involvements should not bar an otherwise excellent candidate from judicial office," he said.

Wednesday, 23 July 2008

Cannabis is OK - The Debate is Over

OK, it’s time to end this debate, once and for all.

• Cannabis Is Relatively Harmless

• Harsh Laws Do Not Work

• Potency Increases Are A Myth

This is scientific fact and there is evidence to back it up. If you disagree, you are wrong ... simple. There, now I have said it. End of discussion, final, it’s over, no buts about it, just accept it. There has to be a cut off point somewhere and I am declaring it now. How much more evidence can be produced as we are already just repeating the same studies? What? So you have read differently? What you have read is wrong or it has been manipulated to suit the agenda of the writer. Go back and reread it. Am I wrong? No, I’m not but don’t take my word for it, read the evidence below.

EMCDDA have produced a 700 page report about cannabis. The two-volume report aims to provide an authoritative reference work on scientific research, legislation and policy issues associated with the drug in Europe.

A cannabis reader: global issues and local experiences [read]

EMCDDA, Lisbon, June 2008

Cannabis is the most-used illicit drug in Europe, but it can also be a major source of division and debate among politicians, scientists, police, professionals and citizens

As a result the public faces a daily flow of information on cannabis, some of it well-founded, but some of it militant and at times misleading.

The report is designed as a guide to inform research, debate and policymaking on the substance.

-Wolfgang Goetz. Director - EMCDDA

My worry is that even all of the evidence in this article will not influence those of the Zero Tolerance / prohibitionist view point. We have seen the Reefer Madness propaganda campaigns in the US and the junk science reports coming out lately at amazing rates but these approaches seem to catch the public eye. Whilst there has been ample reports in the media about the relative safety of cannabis for the last 30 years, it’s the alarmist viewpoints that have dominated especially recently. Supposed legitimate organisations have put out many statements that are simply wrong or purposely misleading. Such organisations as the US Drug Czar’s office, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNOCD) are notorious for deceitful practices and they influence most of the world’s drug policies.

Locally, Australia is also guilty of mass propaganda against cannabis with the government probably the biggest offender. Given the influence of the religious right and hard core prohibition supporting journalists, our government is prepared to follow the populist route and mislead the public. Then we have our friends, Drug Free Australia (DFA) who are funded by us, the tax payer to lie and ignore real evidence with religo-psyco babble and family values rhetoric.

All that is history now as I have declared the debate is over. Evidence has won out and the Disneyland morals brigade have lost. After you have read the EMCDDA 700 page report, read it again and then read on below for some more research that show up the anti-cannabis extremists as the liars that they are.

Cannabis Safer Than Alcohol Or Tobacco, Says Study

Irish Examiner

June 2008

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/06/27/story66083.asp

CANNABIS is less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, according to a major review published by the EU drugs agency.

The report said most users cease smoking cannabis by their late 20s or early 30s and that the vast majority did not experience any negative effects.

“On every comparison of dangerousness we have considered, cannabis is at or near the bottom in comparison with other psychoactive substances,” said author Robin Room, in an analysis contained in a 700-page EU report on cannabis.

The report, A Cannabis Reader: Global Issues and Local Experiences, was published yesterday by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to coincide with international day against drug abuse and illicit trafficking.

Mr Room examined a range of research on the health effects of legal and illegal drugs, which compared the substances based on dangerousness or harm, degree of intoxication and dependence. These found:

* Harm: Ecstasy and cocaine highest, followed by alcohol and heroin, with cannabis lowest.

* Intoxication: Alcohol highest, heroin next, then cocaine, cannabis fourth.

* Dependence: Tobacco highest, heroin second, cocaine third, alcohol fourth and cannabis lowest.

The study follows a report this week by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs, which highlighted sharp rises in cannabis use in many parts of Ireland.

Mr Room said a report by the French Roques committee divided the effects of drugs between general toxicity — involving direct health damage — and “social dangerousness”, with criminal and other behaviour resulting.

It rated cannabis as “very weak” in terms of toxicity and “weak” in terms of social dangerousness.

In comparison, alcohol was rated “strong” for both, with tobacco “very strong” and “none” respectively.

Heroin was rated “strong” (except for medical doses) for toxicity and “very strong” for social dangerousness. Cocaine was also rated “strong” and “very strong”.

Mr Room said the current international restrictions on cannabis were “too harsh”, compared with the greatly under-regulated systems for alcohol and tobacco.

In a separate analysis on the health impact of cannabis, researcher John Witton concluded: “Most cannabis users cease smoking cannabis by their late 20s or early 30s and the vast majority do not experience any adverse effects.”

He said a minority continue their use and that long-term heavy users reported negative health effects.

Forum: Decriminalization Of Cannabis

Wim van den Brink

Amsterdam Institute for Addiction Research Academic Medical Center,

University of Amsterdam Department of Psychiatry, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

http://www.encod.org/info/IMG/pdf/Brink_Decriminalization_Cannabis_2008.pdf

Conclusion :

This paper has shown that cannabis use is not without risks, that criminalization is an expensive strategy involving considerable policing, prosecution and a fair amount of incarceration, that decriminalization does not result in lower prices and higher consumption rates, nor in more severe patterns of cannabis use, that prohibition and criminalization are associated with social harms to the cannabis user, that decriminalization may reduce the association between cannabis use and schizophrenia and between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs, and that criminalization may reduce the legitimacy of the judicial system.

What are the implications of these conclusions for the debate on criminalization versus decriminalization? Evaluation of prevention strategies, including national drug policies, should be subject to the normal conventions of health technology assessment; that is, it should be evidence-based, cost-effective, acceptable to the public receiving it and not generate substantial collateral harms. It seems not very likely that a more vigorous criminal-jusitice-based approach would fulfil these criteria.

A further decriminalization combined with quality control, price measures including taxation, primary and secondary prevention of use and harm reduction through age restrictions and limitations of the number of cannabis retail outlets may postpone early onset of cannabis use and stabilize or even reduce cannabis consumption rates.

Finally, low-threshold and free-of-charge treatment facilities are needed for those who – despite preventive actions – develop physical or mental health problems. Given the available scientific data, existing repressive, expensive and unsuccessful criminal justice policies should be replaced by humane, effective and more efficient health policies such as those currently implemented in many of the European countries, including the Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain and many others.

Cannabis Potency And Contamination: A Review Of The Literature

-National Center for Biotechnology Information

-Addiction Journal

ABSTRACT

Aims: Increased potency and contamination of cannabis have been linked in the public domain to adverse mental health outcomes. This paper reviews the available international evidence on patterns of cannabis potency and contamination and potential associated harms, and discusses their implications for prevention and harm reduction measures.

Methods: A systematic literature search on cannabis potency and contamination was conducted.

Results: Cannabis samples tested in the United States, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Italy have shown increases in potency over the last 10 years. Some countries have not shown significant increases in potency, while other countries have not monitored potency over time. While there are some grounds to be concerned about potential contaminants in cannabis, there has been no systematic monitoring.

Conclusion: Increased potency has been observed in some countries, but there is enormous variation between samples, meaning that cannabis users may be exposed to greater variation in a single year than over years or decades. Claims made in the public domain about a 20- or 30-fold increase in cannabis potency and about the adverse mental health effects of cannabis contamination are not supported currently by the evidence. Systematic scientific testing of cannabis is needed to monitor current and ongoing trends in cannabis potency, and to determine whether cannabis is contaminated. Additionally, more research is needed to determine whether increased potency and contamination translates to harm for users, who need to be provided with accurate and credible information to prevent and reduce harms associated with cannabis use.

Jennifer McLaren - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia,

Wendy Swift - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia,,

Paul Dillon - National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Steve Allsop - National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, Australia