Anne Bressington: The Epitome of Stupidity

In what is seen as a victory for Independent, Ann Bressington, the South Australian government has successfully passed her bill to ban certain drug paraphernalia including bongs.

Anne Bressington is a twat. A first class twat. Once again her selfish, arrogant holier-than-thou opinions have been pushed onto the public. As a former Administrator for the Festival of Light and keen suporter of Fred Niles Christian Democrat Party, the foundations of her polices start to take shape. Completely void of evidence or scientific research, Bressington hails the strategy of Zero Tolerance as the “answer” to the drug problem. She hates Harm Minimisation and has contempt for those who support evidence based treatment that is different from her own unique brand of research. Bressington earned her fame from the infamous split with independent, Nick Xenophon.

The ridiculous new laws were passed last week and prohibits the sale of bongs, pipes, cocaine “kits” and even hookahs which are a traditional item for some cultures. Those caught, could face 2 years jail and/or a $50,000 fine. The whole idea of banning drug paraphernalia has been a issue for Bressington since 2006 when she introduced the Controlled Substances (Sale of Equipment) Amendment Bill. Like drinking, a certain culture arises around drugs especially marijuana. Shops that sell related equipment can be rather “in your face” and enough to make some self moralising conservatives a little uncomfortable. Since most people don’t visit these shops, Bressington fallaciously compared the sale of drug equipment to an issue that was more familiar to the public - the sale of alcohol and tobacco.

"It would be unthinkable for a tobacconist to be able to sell cigarettes to minors on the understanding that those minors would not open the packet and smoke the cigarettes" 

"It would be just as unthinkable to sell alcohol on the understanding that the bottle would not be opened and the alcohol not consumed."

-Ann Bressington

Of course fuckwits like Bressington have absolutely no consideration for anyone’s well being and are more interested in pushing their own personal views onto the public. Experts have been trying to explain to her for a long time now, the problems attached to banning clean and safe equipment for drug users. Her head must be so thick that this information was unable to reach the tiny pea like brain that is incased in cold, hard shit. Her “victory” might be good for the comfort of her conservative cheer squad but probably a death sentence for others. At best, she is going to be responsible for hundreds of sicknesses each year including possibly the spread of HIV-AIDS to users who might have avoided it previously. All this is unimportant to the likes of Bressington and co because it’s better to send the right message than to allow someone to buy a wooden water pipe, regardless of the damage, death and pain it causes.

Ms Bressington said the new laws would help prevent children being lured into illegal drug use.

-Sydney Morning Herald

Like needle exchanges (which she disapproves of), these shops provide clean, safe equipment for drug users so that blood-borne diseases are not transferred between them. If users share a badly made pipe and burn or cut their lips, blood might be passed on to the next user who might pickup HIV-AIDS, Hep B/C or other nasties. The same goes with home made bongs that are usually low quality and are made of materials that are not suited for the purpose of inhaling smoke. Home made equipment might also contain lethal chemicals or carcinogenic agents that react when heated up. The dangers are many and very real. 

This blatant use of her position to appease a minority group of Zero Tolerance zealots needs to be questioned by other members of parliment who are supposed to have our best interest at heart. What positive outcomes has been achieved? What are the advantages of banning such equipment in comparison to the lives it may save or the health problems that are avoided? Another factor to consider is why hasn’t the advice of experts been taken into consideration? Why has the advice of specialists who deal with these issues professionally been overlooked in favour of so called “public concerns” which have no solid data to back it up. 

In 2006 when Bressington was pushing for compulsory drug testing in schools, she stated that, "The reaction from parents has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive in SA". This was her reasoning to dedicate so much time and effort to her cause. When she later announced her proposed bill, parent groups, medical experts and school associations were not “overwhelmingly positive” like she claimed but outraged about the proposal. 

”Making the tests compulsory completely overrides the rights of parents. It’s mandatory. It removes all consent from parents. This is a Bill that could potentially take so much away from parents, school communities and community groups.”

-David Knuckey. Director of the South Australian Association of State Schools Organisation

As usual, the contemptuous Bressington showed off her rhetorical tactics and rolled out the “soft on drugs” attack to anyone who opposed her. This label is a familiar trait of the religious right and moralist who preach moral based drug policies over evidence and research. Anyone who opposes their views are labelled “soft on drugs” and it’s always lapped up by the media. For example, Howard’s favourite NGO, Drug Free Australia, cornered the major political parties with a tricked up survey before the election. They asked for a public response as to whether they were going to have tough drug policies like the Liberal Party or be “soft on drugs”. 

Although the anti-drugs campaigner’s move has outraged parent groups, she says anyone who opposes her legislation, which also would allow tests to be carried out without parental consent, is “soft on drugs”.

Critical Times - MPs want drug test for teens. 17/08/2006

Again Bressington has used so called “public support” to introduce this latest bill. She was allowed to actually bring into law, a dangerous and unworkable policy based on nothing but the view that the public wanted it. Like the drug testing in schools issue, those who opposed her were labelled “soft on drugs” and their often expert advice was dismissed. 

“Concerned parents need to watch closely who opposes the measure . . . it will be an indication of who is soft on drugs”

-Ann Bressington

With the threat of being labelled “soft on drugs”, both Liberal and Labor supported Bressington’s bill. Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has also jumped on the band wagon and is flagging the new bill as a success to the government. Taking the lead from Bressington, he has labelled Liberal Party Legal Affairs spokesman Isobel Redmond and Independent M.P. Kris Hanna as “the Cheech & Chong of the State Parliament as they try to save the bong” because they wanted the bill amended. Closer examination reveals that they only wanted to exempt culturally important & traditional water pipes like hookahs, narghiles, shishas and ghalyans, from the ban . 

Many experts opposed the new bill but facts and evidence have never influenced Bressington’s views before. One local drug expert, pharmacology associate professor Rodney Irvine, said users will seek other ways to inhale smoke and that could be more dangerous.

"When you close one loophole another one emerges, a different pattern of use emerges. They'll make them out of anything, obviously. "I would say that there's a possibility those alternative homemade ones will have some problems." 

-Associate Professor Rodney Irvine

Ann Bressington is the epitome of what’s wrong with our drug policies. A self appointed guardian of our desperate need to ruin our lives through drugs. Luckily Bressington is around or else SA would have turned into a chaotic world of crazed junkies, raping and looting whilst Adelaide burns in the distance. Thank you Allah for our saviour, our moral beacon that shows me the way when I stray ... all the way to jail. 

Would You Give Heroin to Addicts ... Why Not?

1/    Ask yourself why you think addicts should not just be given the drug they crave. 

2/   Ask yourself why do you feel this way.

Some of you will think "I'm not subsidising their habit" or "they should be trying to get clean". Some will just laugh it off as ridiculous while thinking that "junkies are scum" and just piss weak. Lock them up, that will clean the streets up. Where do these opinions come from? Why are some people so strongly opinionated against giving heroin to addicts? Why do some see it as perfect common sense? Those who want prescription heroin are either related to the issue or have spent the time to do some real research or have the facts. On the other hand, those opinions that reject the idea of prescription heroin are derived from common sources such as the MSM, religious groups or peer groups and family. Out of these sources, the MSM effects the largest group but are more open to change. Those who have formed their opinions because of religion or being part of a conservative community will most probably never change their minds. 

Anti heroin crusaders including the MSM often leave out facts or demonise heroin to a point where fear takes over rational debate. Heroin is a 100 year old medication that has had very little problems until it was declared evil by the US. There were very few heroin users before the 1920s and were mainly white, middle class doctors. Addicts were prescribed heroin or morphine and lived normal productive lives as there was almost no street level dealing, no crime and no violence. This changed when the US made all heroin illegal. New users have increased in the western world as the laws got tougher. The UK never had a problem until they stopped supplying most addicts with heroin in the 1960s and 1970s. Even if heroin was totally legalised, there is NO evidence that new users would increase or addiction levels would rise. In fact a survey in 6 publications showed that less than 1% would use heroin or cocaine if available legally. Funny enough, addiction levels in the US have never changed and has remained constant at 1.3% from the day this information was first recorded up until today. Heroin is still used medically in countries such as England, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway  and Switzerland.   

For the average Joe, the idea of giving heroin to junkies must seem ludicrous at best. They know that junkies live in abandoned factories, have dark heavy set eyes and beg on the streets for money. They know how weak these junkies are and they made their own bed, so they have to sleep in it. If junkies were serious about getting clean they can do. Many have done it already so the junkies who continue to use drugs are doing it because they want to. No one is forcing the drugs into their bodies. Cracking down harder on the long term junky who can't even finish their detox, will send the message that the government is serious about being tough on drugs. When faced with court, give them the choice of rehab or jail. That will clean up the streets and allow those who made a mistake to redeem themselves. Simple really.

This is also the default government approach and it reflects in our drug policy. Here lies the problem. ... most experts and doctors in the field disagree with the current policies. You should really be asking yourself if  you trust your own opinion regardless of where you got it from or should you instead listen to doctors and scientists who have spent their lives studying addiction.

The case for prescription heroin has been highlighted constantly for over a decade and grows each year. If most of the experts agree that prescription heroin is working overseas why isn't it a priority in Australia instead of applying the same "tough on drugs" strategy that have been a complete failure for the last 40 years? Many countries now prescribe heroin after rigourous testing and research. 

These countries have completed a heroin trial or can prescribe legal heroin to addicts: England, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany.

The success of the heroin trials have been much documented by the medical industry with many other countries now looking into it as a solution to their own problems. The negative press is always biased and easily debunked with simple facts and figures. Similar criticisms from social conservatives are always without evidence and based on personal opinions only.

'The evidence is already in that such approaches are foolish, and have wider ramifications than are usually considered in "evidence based" trials - especially trials by researchers with a predisposition to distribute heroin rather than minimise its use.' 

-Andrew Bolt

The success of heroin trials is heavily documented and the approval of several major countries to make prescription heroin part of their drug policies, should be evidence enough for at least a trial in Australia. You will find so many cases for prescription heroin on the internet but rarely will you find a case against. Reports by experts, doctors, welfare groups, scientists, politicians, law enforcement officers, judges, senators etc. singing the success of prescription heroin can leave no doubt. For  years there has been constant brainwashing from governments, moralist and the media that total abstinence is the only path and if you disagree, you are "soft on drugs". Well now there is no excuse to fall for these fear tactics and it's time to be pragmatic. Get past the terminology and let facts speak for themselves.

At the same time, the addicts were receiving their daily fix, they were also enrolled in health, social and psychological services, Ms. Gurtner said. ''Heroin was the cookie to get them inside. Then we try to work with them in a comprehensive way.''

As a result, program officials said, crime decreased 90 percent among participants, who are mostly around 30. New H.I.V. and hepatitis infections dropped markedly, the number capable of working doubled, and individual heroin doses decreased. About 80 people -- including 5 in Thun -- chose to enter abstinence programs.

-New York Times

Heroin Myths & Misconceptions

Drugscope U.K.

Article

Instant addiction

That heroin is addictive is a fact. Heroin is not however, instantly or even nearly instantly addictive (neither is crack cocaine or any other substance). This idea is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of addiction and the supposed power of the drug. Research consistently shows that becoming addicted to any drug takes time, usually at least 2-3 months (often much longer) where the user builds up to regular daily use. No drug has the power to instantly addict a user. This is a myth which often gets reinvented by the media (often due to authorities such as the police or politicians making such a statement) each time a `new' drug comes on the scene (witness 'crack', 'ice'). Usually the new drug is not a new drug at all.

Controlled heroin use

Heroin use in many cases leads to heroin addiction. However there are also many occasional or 'controlled' heroin (and other drug) users who are capable of using the drug with informal controls/constraints on their using behaviour e.g. using only at weekends, never on a working day, never alone, never with children around etc. In some cases such use can go on indefinitely with little physical harm accruing to the user. It is not uncommon for the drug use of such users to be unknown by those close to them.

Heroin is relatively non-toxic

Heroin itself is relatively non-toxic (it doesn't destroy skin tissue or other cells in the body as does alcohol and tobacco). Most of the health problems that stem from heroin use are life-style related or linked to the route of administration (injecting drug use for example - through sharing needles or improper use - often leads to various blood-borne diseases or viruses such as HIV or Hepatitis B/C and/or abscess or collapsed veins).

Heroin itself cannot give you spots, make you thin etc. as suggested by previous 'educational' campaigns. Those with the resources to buy their heroin without it impacting on money for food or personal welfare and who are careful about how they administer the drug, can live a generally healthy lifestyle.

Although overdose, (fatal and otherwise) can result from heroin use, it is rare that this is solely the result of heroin use alone.

Heroin is not cut with dangerous substances

Heroin is almost never purposely adulterated ('cut') with dangerous substances, despite popular belief that it is.

Addiction is not forever

Heroin addiction is not necessarily a 'life sentence'. Many heroin addicts 'mature out' of their addiction. The research literature reports extensive evidence of 'spontaneous remission' and 'maturing out' that demonstrates that even the most chronic of addicts may leave their addiction behind them when their circumstances change, (e.g. new partner/child/job/perspective on the world, fed up with lifestyle/being arrested/having no money/having no relationships with family/friends/children etc). This relates primarily to ideas around 'addiction pathways' and undermines simplistic ideas of addiction being primarily bio-chemical in nature.

References

Brecht, M.-L. & Anglin, M. D. (1993) Conditional factors of maturing out of narcotics addiction: Long term relationships. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association. 209-214.

Edwards, G. and Lader, M. (eds.) (1991) The Nature of Drug Dependence, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pearson, G. (1987) The New Heroin Users, London, Blackwell.

Waldorf, D. & Biernacki, P. (1980) 'Natural recovery from heroin addiction: A review of the incidence literature', in, Norman E. Zinberg, M.D. and Wayne Harding, Ed.M. (eds.) Control Over Intoxicant Use:Pharmacological, Psychological and Social Considerations. Cambridge, Mass.

Waldorf, D., Reinarman, C., & Murphy, S. (1991). Cocaine changes: The experience of using and quitting. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

Kaplan, J. (1985) The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Public Policy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Morgan, J. and Zimmer, L. 'The Social Pharmacology of Smokable Cocaine: Not All I'ts Cracked Up to be' in Reinarman, C. & Levine, H. (eds.) Crack in America, London, University of California Press

Newcombe, R. & Matthews, L. (1994) 'Crack in Liverpool: A Preliminary Study of a Group of Cocaine Smokers', in Coomber, R. (ed.), Drugs and Drug Use in Society: A Critical Reader, Dartford., Greenwich University Press.

WHO/UNICRI (1995). Cocaine Project. Geneva: World Health Organization

Harding, W. and Zinberg, N. E. (1977) 'The Effectiveness of the Subculture in Developing Rituals and Social Sanctions for Controlled Drug Use' in Brian M. DuToit, (ed). Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

Zinberg, N. (1994) Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use, New York, Yale University Press

Blackwell, J. S. (1982). Drifting, controlling and overcoming: opiate users who avoid becoming chronically dependent. Journal of Drug Issues, 13, 219-235

WHO/UNICRI (1995). Cocaine Project. Geneva: World Health Organization

What If We Gave Her Heroin?

The recent ABC documentary,The Oasiswas a real eye openerto theproblems that youth facewhen raised in a dysfunctional family. A recurring issue was drug use and how every cent they had was spent on drugs. One girl in particular tried to go to rehab several times and was unable to kick her heroin habit. After two years she was spending $600 a day to feed this habit as we watched her deteriorate before our eyes. All this effort and pain just to take a type of medication. Yes heroin (diamorphine) is still used around the world for the treatment of pain and ... addiction. Why not here? Australia is after all, supposed to be a modern, prosperous country.What if she was given free clean heroin in a hospital or clinic? They do this in many other countries. She was doing it anyway and there were no signs of stopping. If she received government assisted heroin, she would have money and not have to live in hyde park under a bush. If she didn't have to spend every minute of every day trying to find money, she might be able to find a job instead. If there was a program for hardened addicts to receive the drug that ran their lives, she would not have to commit daily crimes to pay for her heroin. Many in her situation turn to dealing to support their own habit. Those desperate enough will cut it and if that added ingredient is dangerous enough, well we might be talking about her in the past tense. The other problem is that if she is accustom to low grade heroin and she stumbles onto a stronger batch, there is no label to advise her of the strength or ingredients. She will overdose and die. Drug dealers don't answer to a licensing board and there is no complaints department either.

Aside from the moral issues, heroin is almost non toxic. It does no harm to you physically except constipation and a subdued respiratory system. The main damage is caused by an unhealthy diet, blood borne diseases and dirty needles causing collapsed veins etc. All this would stop if heroin was a treatment for addiction like in those countries who continue to beat the trend and have a negative growth rate of new heroin users.

In reality, the girl in question is probably dead now and is just one of the thousands that were cheated by a minority group of elitists. These elitists go out of their way to stop the progress needed to introduce real strategies that work. If they left these issues to the experts in this area, the girl we talk of might now be reading this on her way to work.

Rudd Falls Into Line / Luck Of The Draw

KEVIN RUDD had a chance to continue the success of his current world trip and impress NATO with some fresh ideas on Afghanistan. He could have at least given his support to some alternative plans being suggested by several NATO members. He could have ... but he didn't.

Is Kevin Rudd just another US stooge like John Howard and taking the same familiar path?  

When Kevin Rudd took office last November, there was some optimisism from drug policy reformists. After 11 years of ignorance and Howards curtailing to the US conservative forces, there was some hope that Australia would join other countries in redefining a more pragmatic drug policy. The statement from Rudd that futures policies would be “evidence based” gave hope that finally facts would win over political, moral and religious rhetoric.

Except for some off handed comments that Labor were “tough on drugs”, there has been very little indication about which path Rudd will take. That was until his recent overseas trip. Rudd has just spent time in the US to discuss our diplomatic ties and it looks like the spin doctors had a field day with him.

At the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit in Bucharest, Rudd has made his priority the eradication of Afghanistan's opium fields including detailed plans on how to do it. The influence from the US was obvious and the European leaders in NATO were not impressed with the tired old agenda being thrown at them. The European leaders were expecting more from our new PM considering they had made their feelings clear about Howard’s constant mirroring of US policy. The call for more troops was also seen as another US ploy and again reminiscent of the Howard years. Australia has only 1000 troops in Afghanistan and is often criticised by the Europeans for pushing the US agenda without fully committing more troops themselves.

Crop eradication has never met expectations with Colombia being the obvious benchmark. Crop spraying has had very little success and Colombian cocaine has actually increased in production. The only visible results is a country now being run with a paramilitary style police force murdering locals on the street and thousands of innocent farmers losing their legitimate crops to US led cocaine eradication programs.

In Afghanistan, the US has already poured in $1.2 billion into a program of slashing the poppy harvest worth only $1 billion. Opium production went up 30%. The main outcome was increasing hatred of the west from farmers who had their livelihood taken away. The US is now trying to force the Afghanistan government into arial spraying and Rudd is seen as a keen US supporter much like Howard was. The US has appointed former Colombian ambassador, William Wood as it’s ambassador in Kabul. Wood is commonly known as "Chemical Bill" in Washington for his introduction of the Colombian chemical eradication program. You know, the program that didn’t work.

The US could have bought the opium from the farmers and burnt it but it would be “sending the wrong message”. Such is the stupidity of the “War on Drugs”. The other plan to turn Afghanistan’s farmers onto alternative crops has been tried and failed several times. This was Rudd’s sugestion to deal with the locals and the loss of their primary income. It was dismissed quickly by nonchalant NATO officials.

If this is an example of the alternative to Howard’s drug strategy then we are in for a long three years. Australia has spent decades building up Harm Minimisation and was considered a leader worldwide until Howard rode the wave of US conservatism and tried to replace it with a US style zero tolerance policy. Rudd has the chance to now catch up and once again show that facts, research and humane government policies will put us on the map far more than kissing US butt ever will.

The Luck Of The Draw

Mr. David Paterson, newly elevated Governor of NY, recently acknowledged that he used cocaine and marijuana in his younger years. Had he been unlucky enough back then to get busted for possession of a single joint, or a trace amount of coke, he'd probably be in jail now, or trying to overcome a "criminal record" and find a job, or perhaps dead. Instead, because he had the good fortune not to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he is responsible for governing NY State - and however one judges his likelihood of governing well, no one has suggested for a moment that he's unqualified in the light of his acknowledgment. 

Justice should not hinge on luck. Hopefully, the new governor will reconsider our drug policies in light of his own experience. He has long advocated changing the Draconian Rockefeller Law; now he should push for an even more radical change in how we approach drug use in our state and nation. If any political leader can empathize with the real victims of the drug war, he can!

-RG Newman MD, Opiate Addiction. 

Why School Drug Tests Won't Work / DFA Deceit

Drug testing in schools make sense, doesn't it. We don't want our kids taking drugs so testing will deter them and those who have a drug problem will get caught and given the help they need. Serial offenders will be easily detected and removed from the school to stop their influence on other students.

Wrong.

According to a report from the Australian National Council on Drugs, these are the problems:

1/ Estimated cost is between $100 million and $1 billion.

2/ There is no evidence that it actually works. The only independent research so far was a limited US study that concluded that schools with drug testing programs show very little difference in drug usage compared to nearby schools.

3/ Drug testing is not an exact science and it will always give a certain percentage of false positive readings. For a school that heavily demonises drug use, a false positive result can be devastating to a student and his/her family. Even if cleared, the implication of drug use can be stigmatising and traumatic.

4/ Drug testing at school can encourage dangerous practices to avoid detection. 

Also, school drug testing can create a range of harmful, if unintended, consequences. The most dangerous of these is that students could start to adjust any drug-taking behaviour to avoid detection, such as by using different drugs that have shorter detection periods, bingeing on drugs on Friday night to have the system cleared by Monday and any possible test, or consuming more alcohol as it is not tested. Creating a system that will inevitably lead to some students focusing on learning how to avoid detection rather than making responsible decisions is not a step forward.

-Gino Vumbaca. Executive director of the Australian National Council on Drugs.

5/ Putting the onus on teachers to catch students using drugs is not fair for both students and teachers. Teachers are not qualified to detect, catch or counsel student drug users ... they are employed to teach. Most teachers already go far beyond their official duties and have enough to focus on with their actual work. Playing drug cop and dealing with such matters is a profession on it's own and needs to be dealt with by appropriately qualified people.

The need to implement such schemes as school drug testing cannot be based on emotions or personal opinions. Like most issues regarding drugs, there needs to be research and evidence based policies to avoid the drug hysteria whipped up by the government and the MSM. We have learnt nothing if we continue to just blindly push policing and harsher penalties as the answer to illicit drug use. Drug use and abuse are complex matters and raw emotion or misguided personal opinions should not influence a school's decision.  Until we have done the proper research and have real evidence, school drug testing cannot be implemented without risk of causing more damage than the problem itself.

Importing a school-based, drug-testing policy that is not backed up by any evidence that it works, and may even be harmful, defies common sense.

-Gino Vumbaca. Executive director of the Australian National Council on Drugs.

DFA Tries To Deceive Us Again 

Drug Free Australia (DFA) is continuing to trick Australians using the term "Harm Prevention" which sounds very similar to "Harm Minimisation". The problem is that they are vastly different strategies. "Harm Prevention" is basically zero tolerance whilst "Harm Minimisation" is Australia's official drug treatment which the Howard government was desperately trying to change. 

Harm Minimisation has had great success worldwide and encourages a humane approach to dealing with drug addiction. Harm Minimisation is based on research whilst trying to minimise danger to addicts. Programs like needle exchanges to minimise HIVAIDS and substitution treatment using methadone are some of the successful strategies that have helped millions of addicts worldwide. Harm Minimisation is the standard approach by most western countries.

Harm Prevention is a recent term which basically is a rebadged Zero Tolerance policy. Sweden's Harm Prevention strategy has been suggested as a possible model for Australia by ex prime minister, John Howard. It was heavily endorsed by Christopher Pyne, Bronwyn Bishop, Brian Watters(INCB), Piers Ackerman as well as most of the religious right. Since then, Sweden have been called to explain human rights abuses concerning their Harm Prevention policy and have received heavy criticism from experts worldwide. Sweden has shown no real change to overall levels of drug use but has an ever increasing death toll from HIVAIDS and overdoes.

Drug Free Australia (DFA) are best known as the American styled anti-drug organisation that uses religion and ultra conservative views to produce highly biased and misleading information to back Howard's zero tolerance stance. They are heavily funded by the government and have much influence on government programs. They are headed up by TV Evangelist and faith healer, Pastor Margaret Court and the board includes a variety of zany religious right conservatives. 

Oh McCain ... You've Done It Again

John McCain who is turning 182 next week, has slipped up again. This time, in an effort to please the GOP conservatives, McCain was making sure that he wasn't going to stumble on any of the moral issue policies. It seems though with all this responsibility that he isn't sure if condoms stop HIV/AIDS. On the "Straight Talk express", a reprise of the bus tours that he used as part of his election campaign back in 2000, McCain stumbled, paused, mumbled and called on help from his advisors. What was his position? Help please...

The transcript: 

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

( McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian(press secretary), would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver(senior adviser) to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

This must be scary for a many people. A potential US president who doesn't know if condoms stop HIVAIDS or sexually transmitted disease. Having to ask an aid what his own position is on government funded sex education including the use of condoms is more than just a McCain gaff. It is typical of how the GOP have allowed religion and neocons to overtake their core party ideology. I am sure The Republican party of old would be vastly unhappy with the direction the present day GOP has taken. Apart from minimalist governments, no nation building and personal rights, keeping people safe is another fundamental GOP cornerstone that the current Republican party members in power are happily ignoring.

Another Statistic

Recent surveys found that 79 per cent of adult males detained on property offences tested positive to a drug of some type (excluding tobacco and alcohol) 

- (Source: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2006)

It is more than likely that the 79% mentioned are addicts resorting to theft to feed a drug habit. It must be obvious, even to the most optimistic of us that there is an underlying problem not being addressed here. The current solution to this problem is jail. Not a good place to send someone with a medical condition especially addiction. It grates on me that when you are sick, you are normally sent to hospital unless that sickness is addiction. One growing solution is to treat addicts with the drug they crave. Some countries now take this approach with extremely successful results. England still provided addicts with their drug of addiction up until the 1970s when they fell in line with the US "War on Drugs" and switched patients over to methadone. Some doctors can still legally prescribe morphine, cocaine or heroin to addicts but the UK health department usually don't approve it. There are about 300-400 patients still prescribed heroin in the UK. Recently the British government embarked on a scientific trial with prescription heroin and cocaine to 500 addicts but this time carefully monitoring the success rate. The problem was that those who already received prescription heroin had very little crime activity and had caused no problems at all. It all seemed to be working well but to expand the program they needed scientific evidence and this was undertaken a few years ago. The results are still to come.

I don't endorse just handing out highly addictive drugs to anyone. Abstinence should always be the goal. The problem is that sometimes addicts take longer than expected to get clean and sometimes it just never happens. These are the cases where we should look to the past where drugs like heroin, cocaine & morphine were prescribed to treat addiction and drug related crime was almost unheard of. Interestingly, the addiction rate has not really changed since we first started recording this information over 100 years ago.

Diary

Diary: I was walking my dogs last night when something occurred to me. I was content to be out with my dogs and not focussing on just getting home. Usually everything is a chore. I have become an expert at looking happy and I always smile politely and make sure no one suspects I am feeling depressed. Underneath I just want to get the fuck back home where it's safe. The new medication must be starting to work and I certainly feel a bit different. After the walk I even got stuck into some work for a few hours which was a relief considering how much I have on at the moment. I also notice that still there is a lack of wanting to use heroin. It can only be good. On a lighter note, we bought two pairs of food tongs. When Angela got home with the shopping, I pulled them out of the bag and said "new tongs"? She instinctively replied, "Two Tongs ... Tingtong, Sing Song Singsong ... where is Dr. ... Tingtong". She then proceeded to yell at me for the next 15 minutes for putting that stupid poem in her head.

War on Drugs: A Statistic

I was watching a TV debate from Canada on whether drugs should be decimalised. The two guests were on opposite sides of the argument with a police officer pushing for decriminalisation and a politician opposing it. No surprises there. Apart from one or two 'nays' from a random questionnaire to people on the street, the debate was strictly a win for the 'yah'. The politician repeated the same old arguments using 'children's futures' and 'getting tougher' with no evidence and dragging out the same tired old line that 'it's getting better' and 'we can't give up' etc. The police officer had facts and figures to back his argument along with years of experience to give real insight into what it is actually like at a personal level. Something the politician sadly lacked. What prompted me to write this was that the police officer raised some statistics and pointed to the US as how much the current policies have failed. Fact after fact and the debate kept drifting back to the US and the dismal failure of the "War on Drugs". To everyone's surprise, the politician refuted the statistics and claimed things were turning around in the US because of the harsher penalties. He said that as more money is spent to create a tougher police force and more prisons are built to keep dealers & users off the street, the more that they stop drug usage. He also claimed that young people are not taking up drugs as much as before. It must be pointed out that he also claimed that drug use went up in The Netherlands after they adopted a softer drug policy. This was instantly debunked when it was explained to him that world usage went up also and in fact The Netherlands usage was less than most countries. The police officer again just used facts to disprove the politician's claim. It is easy to rattle off statistics but a visual guide puts it into perspective. Below is a stunning chart that shows the futility of the "War on Drugs":

Drug Hysteria Carnival Rolls On / Society is Doomed!

POLICE TO PAY COMPO FOR ROADSIDE DRUG TEST BUNGLE

An Australian motorist identified as the first in the world to return a positive roadside drug test will now be paid compensation by police who've admitted making a mistake. Ballarat courier John De Jong was pulled over by police for a roadside drug test in 2004 - the fourth driver to be tested using the new technology.

A large media contingent had assembled for the event - they were told Mr De Jong had tested positive for cannabis and amphetamines - his case broadcast around the world.

But the result was wrong - a further laboratory test confirming the technical error - Mr De Jong sueing Victorian police for defamation. Just weeks before his case, the matter has been settled confidentially. Victorian police may be facing a payout of up to 150 thousand dollars. They've also apologised for the hurt and embarrassment caused.

Laura Tunstall - Macquarie National news

I have no problem with charging people for drink/drug driving. It's dangerous and by now we should be aware of what damage someone can do behind the wheel of a car. The problem with this case is that in an effort to follow the government's "tough on drugs" rhetoric, the Victorian Police invited the media to witness the new roadside drug testing unit in action. Knowing full well that anyone who tested positive would be publicly outed as a drug user, they let the media in anyway. Their stunt backfired and because of a technical problem John De Jong was known as that speed freak/dope smoker who got caught being "stoned behind the wheel". 

John De Jong and his family paid the price for drug hysteria. Pushing a fairly common practice of recreational drug use into the public domain as some sort of degenerative act will put many everyday people in a precarious position. What has been laughed off for decades as "it's only grass" might now make you public enemy number one. Being caught drug driving is going to portray some well respected people as something they're not ... a scourge on society. This is not because of the drug driving charge but because a "tough on drugs" approach demonises even the most casual user of drugs. 

Society is Doomed!

NETHERLANDS RATED MORE STABLE AND PROSPEROUS THAN U.S.

A new global study ranks the Netherlands 9th in the world in stability and prosperity. The U.S. follows at a distant 22nd. I'll give you one guess where I'm going with this. Ok, times up. If you said, "Scott will argue that superior quality of life in the Netherlands proves that an enlightened marijuana policy won't destroy society," you win a cookie.

Indeed, superior quality of life in the Netherlands proves that an enlightened marijuana policy won’t destroy society, and there are no complications which ought to prevent anyone from understanding this. A bunch of white Europeans have been prancing around for decades allowing one another to sell and smoke marijuana openly, culminating in their designation as the 9th best nation in the world. Not to mention their progressive policies on psychedelic mushrooms, safe injection sites, drug sentencing, and criminal justice spending, none of which have produced outcomes resembling those we've been told to expect should we abandon our obscenely harsh approach to these matters here in the U.S. The numbers speak for themselves.

Scott Morgan - stopthedrugwar.org

For years, the US drug czars has been predicting the downfall of society in The Netherlands since they changed their drug policy to Harm Minimisation from the US styled Zero Tolerance. The Netherlands of course have the infamous 'coffee shops' where you can buy marijuana and hash with your coffee. They also give free heroin to long term addicts at many of their clinics.  During the late 1990s, US Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey publicly lied about the effects of Harm Minimisation in The Netherlands and quoted incorrect figures in an effort to denounce their liberal drug policies.

"We told the Dutch the comparative crime rates are higher than the United States’ -almost double in some cases. In some cases there is much as four times higher than Germany, France, Belgium. Comparative data, I know, is a flaky. But in everyone of them, their crime rates are higher than ours."

Even though it was pointed out that his figures were rubbery at best, he continued with his harsh criticism.

"The Dutch have consistently followed a harm-reduction policy...In their country, drug-abuse rates among their youngsters have gone way up under this policy and their prison population has gone way up"

"The United States’ preventive approach, in contrast, was a roaring success"

The Dutch government was understandably upset at the blatant lies and produced the real statistics which caused a major retreat. McCaffrey visited The Netherlands on a fact finding tour and came back with a new spin claiming that the real issue is to catch traffickers and dealers.

Here are some statistics from the around the period when US Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey made those wonderful comments. Incidentally, more recent figures have pushed the two countries even further apart statistically.

Last month use of cannabis (marijuana) by high school seniors: 

18.1% in the Netherlands (1996); 

23.7% in the U.S. (1997). 

Any lifetime use (prevalence) of cannabis by older teens (1994): 

30% in the Netherlands; 

38% in the U.S. 

Recent (last month) use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995): 

15% in the Netherlands; 

16% in the U.S.; 

24% in the U.K. 

Any lifetime use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995): 

29% in the Netherlands; 

34% in the U.S.; 

41% in the U.K. 

Heroine addicts as a percentage of population (in 1995): 

160 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 

430 per 100,000 in the U.S. 

Murder rate as a percentage of population (in 1996): 

1.8 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 

8.22 in the U.S. 

Incarceration rate as a percentage of population (1997): 

73 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 

645 per 100,000 in the U.S. 

Crime-related deaths as a percentage of population: 

1.2 per 100,000 in the Netherlands (1994); 

8.2 per 100,000 in the U.S. (1995). 

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement: 

$27 per capita in the Netherlands; 

$81 per capita in the U.S. 

Sources: The Trimbos Institute of Amsterdam, Monitoring the Future Survey, University of Michigan, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Netherlands Ministry of Justice, World Health Organisation, Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Diary

DIARY: I am now on Aropax which I have been on twice before. It seemed to work the first time but it I was drinking heavily at the time and I just went into a stupor. The second time was when I was on 110 ml of methadone and it did nothing. This time though, it seems to have kicked in straight away. After the first tablet, I was dizzy on and off all day with some flashes of something unusual ... like happiness or excitement but different somehow. I had some trouble sleeping also. I have a huge day today with work as I recently won a large contact and two more in the pipeline. I mentioned the other day, this will see me through for a while with some nice dollars. I am going to do up my office with a new PC and a Mac and I also might be dropping my cable service for ADSL2 so I can run my business more efficiently. Cable was great in it's day but Optarse are certainly a company on the slide with their service. I'm getting a new chair as well. I worked out along time ago that if you sit in front of a PC all day, you must have a good keyboard, mouse and chair. The feedback from the Tim Blair incident is still going on. I am still getting emails giving me their support which is flattering. I even got a few emails from some people I would consider on the other side of the political fence. One in particular was truly amazing. He is a regular on some of the more hard core right wing sites that I don't like at all but he is a far from the extremists that usually haunt these places. If anything it has encouraged me to go back and reread his comments more carefully.

Dear Terry, I just thought I'd drop a line and express my support for you after some of the recent attacks and so forth. The attacks on you have been quite stupid and unfair, and I have felt a little disgusted at some people's childishness and moral grandstanding. For what it's worth, I think your blog is a unique contribution to the blogosphere, and think that you should keep going. I may not agree with everything you say, but I certainly believe that harm minimisation is something that ought to be looked at more, rather than the self-righteous "war on drugs". I must admit the cruel attacks on you have disturbed me. When I read about the story of your wife and how you became an addict, I feel a little sorry for you. I really can't fathom why they would instead feel anger and a need to express hatred towards you. Perhaps you and your blog makes them feel challenged, and they need to re-assert their "moral superiority" in order to feel better about themselves. -Leon Bertrand

This shows that opinions can differ but basic humanity remains the same. It also shows the really nasty fuckers who made degrading comments on Tim Blair's blog would do so regardless of their politics.