Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stupidity. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 December 2010

Drug War Success - 14 Year Old Hitman who Beheads People

Winning the War on Drugs
"El Ponchis" or 8th-grader, Edgar Jimenez is a 14 year old hitman for a Mexican drug cartel. He was recently caught by Mexican authorities and will join the growing list of detained children who were once employed by drug cartels to murder people. Not surprisingly, one psychologist has already classed Jimenez as a “psychopath”.

I don’t recall having ambitions to join a drug cartel when I was 14 years old and I certainly never imagined I would cut off some stranger’s head. There really must be some extenuating circumstances for young kids to behave in such a barbaric manner. But let’s not procrastinate here. These kids and indeed, much of society are victims of a bloody but futile crusade known as the "War on Drugs”. 

What did we really expect to happen? What was the outcome we envisaged when we freely let fanatical anti-drug zealots, religious nutters and ruthless, agenda driven politicians have their way without any formal scrutiny? Where were the evaluations? Why didn’t we take notice of the prison population explosion or the incredible level of street violence that grew each decade?

We watched on as drugs ripped apart communities. We didn’t help those ravaged by addictive drugs but instead, sent them to prison. We broke up families and incarcerated millions without caring for one moment if what we were doing was actually productive. There were only token attempts to address the underlying problem. Drugs were public enemy number one and the only approach was to be "Tough on Drugs”. But the "War on Drugs" and "Tough on Drugs" were not what it implied - it was a war on people. 

Why is the carnage caused by the drug war so oblivious to our leaders? Amazingly, it took many, many decades of worsening problems before they took notice of scientists and experts. But they even misused this scientific data and research to spin their own reasons for continuing their assault on drug users. Still, evidence through careful research was making the news and this led to the introduction of Harm Minimisation. Our experts and medical professionals were finally allowed to propose evidenced based programs that dealt with the realities of drug use and offered a humane, medical approach. Unfortunately, we had already endured almost a century of propaganda and most of the public didn’t know any better so any new ideas that made our leaders nervous were ceremoniously dumped, all with just one shriek of being ”Soft on Drugs”. 

Even in countries like Australia, global drug policies have created a wartime environment. Military style police units smashing up homes, paramilitary dog squads placed at train stations and government sanctioned, “Stop and Search” laws are not conducive with a civil society in times of peace. Locking up family members who suffer an addiction or choose to use relatively harmless drugs will not lead to a more cohesive community. The constant drone that we need to attack drug use in a war like manner hasn’t reduce drugs in our communities. Instead, like any war, it has produced massive casualties, especially children. 

The emergence of killers like 14 year old Edgar Jimenez is the result of our fanatical efforts to stop drug use. But it doesn’t stop there. All over the world, governments create the situation where violence and societal disarray are commonplace. Driven by political greed, the public are told how necessary the drug war is but there is very little effort to address the fallout. Nearly 30,000 drug related deaths in Mexico isn’t even enough to stop the government continuing their failed strategy. In the US, daily occurrences of inner city violence and murder fuelled by drug gangs isn’t enough. Terrorists funding their activities with inflated profits driven by drug prohibition, isn’t enough. So why would hundreds of kids running around cutting off people’s heads be enough either.


Teenage Cartel Hitman Is a U.S. Citizen
By Elspeth Reeve
December 2010

The floppy-haired 14-year-old turned, like any other modern teen, to YouTube to make his confession. But unlike a typical 8th-grader, Edgar Jimenez's was confessing to beheading people for a Mexican drug cartel for the price of $2,500 each. A hunt for the boy ensued, and this week, Mexican authorities nabbed the "hit boy" known as "El Ponchis" at an airport; he was en route to Tijuana, where he and his teenage sister were planning to sneak into San Diego. Why? He's an American citizen.

Jimenez was arrested Thursday night, suspected of working for Pacific Sur, a gang that splintered off from the notorious Beltran Leyva cartel. The teen was paraded in front of news cameras, even as police guards wore masks for their own protection, yet another symptom of the persistent horrific violence that has plagued Mexico since the start of its drug war. As an American citizen, Jimenez will get "all appropriate consular assistance," CNN reports.

But shockingly, Jimenez is not unique as a child participant in this violence. Drug cartels--like their fellow fans of beheadings, Al Qaeda--are increasingly leaning on kids and women to help them maintain control over large areas of the country. Here are a couple of accounts on offer in the media as outlets attempt to contextualize.

Gangs Recruiting More Kids  
"The number of young people aged 18 and under detained for drug-related crimes has climbed steadily since President Felipe Calderón launched his assault on cartels in 2006," reports The Telegraph's Harriet Alexander. "Figures from the Attorney General's office show that there were 482 arrests of under 18s in 2006, and 810 in 2009. The tally this year is set to be even higher." A psychologist says Jimenez is a "psychopath," and that kids like him "like to kill, to steal, and they don't need to conform to society because they are mistreated and become very hostile from a young age." But The Houston Chronicle's Dudley Althaus points out that other teens have also been arrested for drug killings: 

Several Laredo teenagers were convicted in 2007 for carrying out killings on behalf of the Zetas, the violent organization entrenched in Nuevo Laredo and other towns along the South Texas border. One of those teens, Rosalio 'Bart' Reta, killed his first victim at age 13 and might have murdered more than 30 others before being captured.

Gangs Recruiting Women, Too
The Guardian's Jo Tuckman and Rory Carroll add, describing a taped confession of a women who said she worked for the Zetas "killing taxi drivers, police officers, innocent people and children." Photos of "her severed head in an icebox" were posted online a couple days later. The "number of women imprisoned for federal crimes, most of which are drug-related, has quadrupled in three years," a study found. Women are pulled into the cartels by their husbands or boyfriends.

Violence So Pervasive It's Changing the Language
Fox News' Steve Harrigan writes about his own experience in the area. "'Narcofosa' is a word I heard for the first time in Juarez. Narco means workers for the drug cartels and fosa means grave. We were standing in a mass grave where 20 narcos had been buried outside of Juarez. Because many of the bodies were decapitated, identification is unlikely. So the bodies are just put in unmarked graves in one section of the cemetery known as the narcofosa or 'the graves for the headless.'"

WikiLeaks Docs Show U.S. Frustrated with Mexico's Drug War
the Los Angeles Times' Tracy Wilkinson writes. "In contrast to their upbeat public assessments, U.S. officials expressed frustration with a 'risk averse' Mexican army and rivalries among security agencies ... The cables quoted Mexican officials expressing fear that the government was losing control of parts of its national territory and that time was 'running out' to rein in drug violence." One cable says: "Official corruption is widespread, leading to a compartmentalized siege mentality among 'clean' law enforcement leaders and their lieutenants. ... Prosecution rates for organized crime-related offenses are dismal; 2% of those detained are brought" to court.

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

Saturday, 7 August 2010

RED ALERT - Deadly Pot Growers to Go Free!


Go inside NOW. 

Lock the windows and the doors. 

Check your daughters whereabouts. 

Make sure you have weapons. 

Turn your lights off and hide. 

You have been warned!


Editorial: Delayed Justice Comes At A Cost To Community
August 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Just legalise, tax and regulate it.
-JC of Adelaide

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

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

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

Wednesday, 4 August 2010

New Media Vs Old Media

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

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

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

The Drum Comments:

Terry Wright
28 Jul 2010 5:10:09pm
--

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder the government wants an internet filter.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Monday, 2 August 2010

Are We Really That Dumb?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Will Never Win War On Drugs - The Sun (Scotland)
How Legalized Pot Could Hurt Mexico's Cartels - Newsweek
Drug Sentences Create Racial Caste System - Miami Herald
'Cocaine Nation' A Case For Legalization - NPR
Former Presidents Denounce Drug War Ahead of AIDS Meet - Inter Press Service
Drug Users Must Be Decriminalized Along With Scale-Up Of Combination Treatment - PhysOrg
'Decriminalise Personal Drug Use', Suggests Chairman Of The Bar Council - The Telegraph
Drug Control Policy Director Talks Prevention - NPR
Experts Urge Reform Of Global Drug Policy - The Associated Press
Marijuana Should Be Taxed And Regulated - Canada.com
Medical Matters : Debate Over Heroin Prescription Needs To Reopen - Irish Times
Feature: Drug War a Devastating Failure, Scientists and Researchers Say - DrugWar Chronicle
Ecstasy May Ease PTSD Symptoms - WebMD
On The Street, You Can See The Harm Caused By Drug Laws - Ottawa Citizen
Parents: End The War On Drugs – For Your Kids - California Progress Report



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