Harm Minimisation - The Christian Thing To Do

Although religion can rub me up the wrong way, those who have true faith tend to be pleasant and I find their company enjoyable. I’m talking real faith here, not brainwashed fundamentalists or hypocritical evangelists or the once-a-week-to-church, traditional catholics. Those who genuinely believe in goodwill to mankind, peace and tolerance. These are things I alwas thought were supposed to be god’s teachings. Real people of faith care for others regardless of their faults. Sure, they may snot someone if they’re really provoked but they are basically good people. They aren’t restricted by dogma and they don’t ponce about with their eyes closed muttering JEEEESUS OH JEEEEEESUS like Benny Hinn reaching an orgasm. Faith for them is personal. They trust science, don’t believe in magic underwear and are tolerant of other religions. Most importantly, real people of faith are humane and compassionate. When I see so called religious groups or individuals criticising Harm Minimisation, I know they’re not those of real faith ... they have a more earthly agenda. Opposing Harm Minimisation is breaking every rule in their particular religious handbook that they are supposed to follow. So when I see religious folk brushing against the grain by supporting HM, I can’t help but feel a sense of victory over the frauds who use religion as a weapon. It hammers home how religion can be so divisive when hijacked by self righteous egomaniacs. There is an organisation called the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative (IDPI) who are dedicated to true Christian values in drug policy. They support HM and safe practices for users. They believe in compassion and the dignity of drug addicts and their time is spent helping people in trouble, not judging them. A far cry from the professional Christian-political groups who infest the drug treatment industry. It’s always a good feeling to find opposition to the powerful Christian lobby who are so hell bent on destroying HM. So when I recently stumbled onto an article from a group with similar aims to IDPI, I was pleasantly surprised and wanted to share it.

Needle-Exchange Programs Christian Thing To Do By William Martin Houston Chronicle April 2009 The Texas Legislature is currently considering bills that would allow the establishment of programs to enable injecting drug users to exchange used syringes for sterile ones, as a proven means of reducing the spread of blood-borne diseases. The Senate version of the bill has already passed, by a vote of 23-6. An almost identical bill is under consideration by the House Public Health Committee, where its future is uncertain. Texas is the only state in the Union that still prohibits the purchase or possession of syringes for purpose of injecting illegal drugs. As the state with the fourth-highest HIV/AIDS rate in the nation, this is not a lone star of which we can be proud. Consider the following relevant facts: • The sharing of needles by injecting drug users contributes significantly to the spread of blood-borne diseases, most notably HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C. • Treatment of these widespread diseases is enormously expensive — more than $300,000 in lifetime costs for a single case of either disease — much of which is covered by taxpayer funds. Between 2001-2005, Texas Medicaid paid more than $300 million for the treatment of HIV/AIDS alone. • Extensive worldwide and long-term experience with needle-exchange programs has demonstrated conclusively that they reduce the spread of disease without increasing or encouraging drug abuse and, in addition, serve as a bridge to treatment for a substantial proportion of participants. Supported by repeated scientific research, American medical and public health personnel overwhelmingly support making sterile syringes available to injecting drug users. Despite the evidence, many politicians, often reflecting the sentiments of their constituents, oppose the establishment or public funding of needle-exchange programs. Conservative Christians have been among the most resistant to these programs. Though some sincerely question the scientific evidence supporting various forms of needle exchange, the major opposing argument continues to be, “It sends the wrong message.” Before we accept that rationale, we need to think about the message we currently send: “We know a way to dramatically cut your chances of contracting a deadly disease, then spreading it to others, including your unborn children. It would also dramatically cut the amount of money society is going to have to spend on you and those you infect. But because we believe what you are doing is illegal, immoral and sinful, we are not going to do what we know works. You are social lepers and, as upright, moral, sincerely religious people, we prefer that you and others in your social orbit die.” Less than a decade ago, this was the attitude most churches manifested toward people afflicted with HIV/AIDS. If people were determined to engage in sinful behavior, they should expect to reap the full terrible harvest of their actions. God might be merciful toward sinners, but we were not. Then, in 2002, Franklin Graham hosted Prescription for Hope, a global conference attended by more than 800 Christians from many countries and denominations. PBS Frontline pointed to that gathering as the moment at which Christians got involved in confronting HIV/AIDS. Soon afterward, Rick (author of The Purpose Driven Life) and Kay Warren launched a major HIV/AIDS initiative. Today, many other churches, large and small, minister to people stricken with this disease. These ministries do not screen the people they serve to make sure they were infected through no fault of their own. They meet them at the point of their need and offer what help they can. Suppose we worked in such a ministry and were confronted by a person who had contracted the virus from a contaminated needle. While we may rightly decry drug addiction and find injecting drug use abhorrent, what defense could we offer if that person said, “You knew that, by using a sterile syringe, I could lessen my chance of getting this disease, and yet you refused to support programs that would make those available to me. What kind of neighbor are you?” How can we justify saying it is permissible, even laudable, to help people after they have contracted HIV/AIDS, but wrong to approve of measures that significantly reduce their chances of contracting that disease? Jesus had nothing to say about needles, but we do know how he treated social outcasts and sinners, and he had a great deal to say about people who let prim concern with their own righteousness interfere with offering needed assistance to those in peril. Needle-exchange programs save money, demonstrate compassion, preserve lives, and offer a helping hand to people in desperate need. These are criteria for public policy that thoughtful religious people can support with a clear conscience. Martin is the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Senior Fellow in Religion and Public Policy at the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University. For more on this issue, see “Needle Exchange Programs: Sending the Right Message,” at http://www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/drug-policy.

Cannabis is a Hard Drug Too! - More DFA Deceit

Here is just another in a long line of farcical positions held by Drug Free Australia (DFA). Their arguments are thin, their science is junk and their evidence is cherry picked from millions of pages of research. DFA are notorious for producing misinformation and twisting facts. This article is a another example.

CANNABIS is a Hard Drug Too! DFA Newsletter

Spring 2008 Why is cannabis still separated out from the so-called ‘hard drugs’ in Australian statistical data, given that we now have strong evidence of its devastating harms? In countries such as Sweden, which has the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD, cannabis has NEVER been considered ‘soft’. In the UK it has just been re-classified up to a Class B drug – sending a strong message to their community that this drug is definitely NOT soft! However, the situation may be about to change in Australia. The establishment of the innovative new cannabis research centre (NCPIC) is certainly a step in the right direction. Drug Free Australia welcomed the excellent address given by the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, when she opened the Centre earlier this year. She, along with Professor Alan Budney, a specialist in the field, both emphasised the complexities and harms of cannabis. We were further heartened by meetings with two Federal Ministerial Advisers, both of whom assured us a preventative approach to illicit drug policy is being taken seriously by Labor. The most recent, compelling evidence cannot be disregarded. For instance, the Australian Medical Association has issued warnings on the health risks associated with smoking marijuana. Risks of cannabis use include memory loss, psychosis, impaired driving, hallucinations, asthma, and even lung cancer. Moreover, warns the AMA, one third to one half of detained patients admitted to psychiatric units in Australia are there because marijuana use has precipitated their condition. A new scientific study conducted in New Zealand indicates that long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults. The study recognised that cannabis smoke has been shown to have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco. Many national and international studies have found that drivers intoxicated with cannabis, pose a high risk of road accidents. For example a 10 year Victorian study found a 7 times greater risk of a fatal accident. Other studies clearly show that cannabis impairs vehicle control, including the ability to stay in one lane, as well as slowing reaction time. (ANCD Report, Dec 2004). Highly respected medical practitioners in Australia and overseas have confirmed that cannabis use is linked to psychosis. Dr Brian Boettcher, Consulting Psychiatrist in the UK reports that ‘Cannabis is capable of precipitating psychosis, going on to the chronic cases in people who have had no family and personal history of psychiatric illness. There have been suggestions that such people may be the ones who have started cannabis in their teens’. So far as cannabis use and birth defects is concerned, a Commonwealth Department of Health publication to medical practitioners warns of foetal brain development, relative prematurity, smaller length and head circumference, malformations, higher rate of miscarriage and perinatal death. A US study found a 10 times greater risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants of marijuana- using mothers. Other effects in the new born are lethargy, slow to gain weight, increased startle reflexes, tremors and possible long- term developmental and behavioural effects. All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.

I have watched almost daily as Jo Baxter and Gary Christian contribute their special brand of drug propaganda to the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) email forums, DrugTalk and Update. I have also recently watched many members unsubscribe as the content quality is reduced by these people. Maybe it’s the posts from Jo Baxter using comments from the religious, anti-drug zealots, Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.(DACA) as some sort of authority or Gary Christian bombarding every topic with multiple emails and his never ending focus shifts when he hits a wall of expertise. Just today on the radio, I heard Jo Baxter suddenly switch topics from prescription heroin to openly legalising heroin in an attempt to mislead the listeners. She was defending her position on a possible heroin trial in Australia and when asked to respond to Dr. Alex Wodak’s suggestion for such a trial said that legalising heroin would be a mistake. Instead of responding to why prescription heroin wouldn’t work for long term addicts, she simply said legalising heroin sends the wrong message. This is standard stuff for DFA to change the focus of the debate with the intention to misrepresent what their opponents are really talking about. In their tiny little world there is no middle ground. Prescription heroin equals free for all drug legalisation, Harm Minimisation equals encouraging people to use drugs, decriminalisation equals legalisation, human rights for addicts equals moral decay. To be fair, I need to clarify my position first. I detest DFA and consider them probably the most dangerous organisation in Australia. Their polices are crude and harsh, cruel and non compassionate, unscientific and unrealistic, based on proven failures and unsuccessful strategies, full of religious rhetoric and fundamentalism, are founded on misapprehension and mythos, sly and disingenuous and basically unworkable. DFA tactics include misinformation and propaganda, arrogance and bullying, political manoeuvring and opportunity, exaggeration and guesswork, lies and deceit and especially misleading the public and government. Most of the DFA board/fellows are affiliated with religious groups. These include the Salvation Army and the Catholic Church and also radical evangelists like The Festival of Light, Seventh Day Adventists, Australian Family Association and even Scientology. Many have been part of abstinence only programs that reject Harm Minimisation like Tough Love, Drug Stop, Parents for Drug Free Youth. They have affiliation with shady groups like Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, Wilderness Therapy, Drug Free America Foundation and Knights of the Southern Cross. The patron is a TV evangelist who performs magic tricks on stage like curing the sick. She claims god works through her to heal the crippled or cancer sufferers. I have decided to dissect their article and seek out the actual facts. Not surprisingly it wasn’t hard. The content of the article is in red.

CANNABIS is a Hard Drug Too! Why is cannabis still separated out from the so-called ‘hard drugs’ in Australian statistical data, given that we now have strong evidence of its devastating harms?

Because it’s not a hard drug. Don’t take my word for it, look to the world trend that is decriminalising cannabis at a rapid rate. The main reason given for decriminalisation is the separation of hard drugs from soft drugs. You are probably now asking yourself, isn’t this what the whole article is about? And you are dead right, which makes DFA dead wrong. The many countries who have or are considering classing cannabis as a soft drug have obviously researched the issue rigourously so why are DFA taking the opposite view? This is exactly my point and one of the clearest examples of why DFA has little or no credibility. Cannabis has never killed anyone, no-one has ever overdosed from it and it doesn’t cause devastating harm as DFA claims. This doesn’t mean it’s harmless but cannabis is many times safer than legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol. In moderation, there’s debate whether it’s even harmful at all but like any drug, excessive use may cause problems.

In countries such as Sweden, which has the lowest illicit drug use in the OECD, cannabis has NEVER been considered ‘soft’. In the UK it has just been re-classified up to a Class B drug – sending a strong message to their community that this drug is definitely NOT soft!

Sweden is often used as the success story of a Zero Tolerance drug policy but there is a good reason for this. Other countries with Zero Tolerance policies like the US show that the policy has no effect whatsoever on rates of drug use. The US for example has the highest rate of drug use on the planet although it has similar strategies like Sweden including the classing of cannabis as a hard drug. Sweden is selectively singled out because it has always had a relatively low rate of drug use including alcohol. The Swedes are just not regular users of drugs in comparison to most countries. The statement from DFA that cannabis has been re-classified to a class B drug in the UK only claims it’s sending a message that cannabis is not a soft drug. This is not evidence that cannabis is a hard drug at all but merely political posturing. The UK government decided to raise the classification of cannabis against all recommendations from experts, the police, their own party and even a special enquiry commissioned by themselves. The enquiry report from a few years prior had suggested to lower the classification to the lowest class of C, which they did and cannabis use then dropped as a result. Move forward a few years to 2008 and the government has a new unpopular leader. In a politically motivated stunt, the lower use rates were somehow completely overlooked and cannabis was again raised to a class B drug. So much for evidence based policies when your popularity is at stake.

However, the situation may be about to change in Australia. The establishment of the innovative new cannabis research centre (NCPIC) is certainly a step in the right direction. Drug Free Australia welcomed the excellent address given by the Federal Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, when she opened the Centre earlier this year. She, along with Professor Alan Budney, a specialist in the field, both emphasised the complexities and harms of cannabis. We were further heartened by meetings with two Federal Ministerial Advisers, both of whom assured us a preventative approach to illicit drug policy is being taken seriously by Labor.

The National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) is being bandied about a lot by anti-drug groups. They are also receiving much criticism for being another propaganda machine. Michael Gormly, editor of Kings Cross Times gives an example in his article titled, NCPIC spouts more junk science. Funnily, Jan Copeland, the head of NCPIC recently slipped up and admitted publicly that most cannabis smokers DO NOT have problems. I wonder who the two Federal Ministerial Advisers were that met with DFA? Apparently DFA were not important enough to be welcomed by Nicola Roxon (Federal Minister for Health and Ageing), Jenny Macklin (the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) or Jan McLucas (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing). I did a search for DFA on the website for Health and Ageing and only found one reference to them in a one line comment regarding amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). All other instances of DFA were for Direct Fluorescence Assay or diseases like Syphilis. So much for being noticed by the government. DFA do a good job of telling us they are a peak body NGO and often suggest they are part of the Australia’s strategy on illicit drugs. They make a lot of fuss about their influence on the government including their demand that Australia’s political parties come clean on their support of being “tough on drugs”. They were mostly ignored with their demand except by the Libs who coincidentally approved funding for DFA when in government. For a “Peak Body”, the have surprisingly little support from professionals. Looking through the websites of official organisations that deal with illicit drugs, I am yet to find support for DFA. The only links to DFA seem to be from similar groups who are also ignored by the professionals. Their biggest claim to fame and the source for much of their delusion is being prominent contributors to the The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. This report was the result of the most loaded enquiry ever held in Australia and although it’s been written off by most experts worldwide and completely ignored by the current government, DFA still promote it as the answer to our drug problem. Apart from like minded groups, they are seen for what they are - a bunch of radical religious weirdoes who care not for addicts but their own personal ideology.

The most recent, compelling evidence cannot be disregarded. For instance, the Australian Medical Association has issued warnings on the health risks associated with smoking marijuana. Risks of cannabis use include memory loss, psychosis, impaired driving, hallucinations, asthma, and even lung cancer. Moreover, warns the AMA, one third to one half of detained patients admitted to psychiatric units in Australia are there because marijuana use has precipitated their condition. A new scientific study conducted in New Zealand indicates that long term cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer in young adults. The study recognised that cannabis smoke has been shown to have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco.

The evidence might appear compelling but it is not fact. Only a tiny percentage ever have problems with cannabis and this is mostly confined to heavy users. Any sensible person would agree that abusing any drug increases the risks of harm. Most anti-drug campaigns including tobacco, focus on the extreme examples of what may occur if used excessively over many years. Nearly all illicit drugs have very little effect on the user unless abused. Heroin for example is basically non toxic and has almost no physical effects. The same is for cannabis. You may notice that half the list of possible harms are easily avoidable through common sense but they always seem to be included as additional scare tactics. For example, impaired driving is a no brainer. If drinkers can avoid driving when intoxicated why wouldn’t cannabis users do the same? Someone under the effects of cannabis is much more likely not to drive than alcohol affected persons but this is never mentioned. What about asthma or lung cancer? Do asthma sufferers smoke cigarettes? Do cigarette smokers continue if they start to get asthma? The difference with cannabis is that it can consumed by other methods apart from smoking. It seems that cannabis users again have been targeted as lacking common sense. Users with respiratory problems can include cannabis in food or use the many vaporisers available on the market. Cannabis may have greater concentrations of carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco but the process of intake is completely different. Cigarette smokers inhale all day whilst cannabis users only take what they need to. Smoking 20 cigarettes a day with 10-20 puffs is vastly different to 1-4 puffs per day or week. Research on inhaling burnt plant matter shows that the body can natural accommodate a certain amount of fumes without any effect. It varies from person to person but if say 10% is harmless then 40 puffs on a cigarette being 10% of a daily total of 400 is significantly more than say 4 puffs for cannabis. It again comes down to use versus abuse. That being said, anyone who has 40 puffs of cannabis a day, every day probably needs help. On a side issue, since prohibition makes cannabis expensive, users often mix in tobacco to maximise their stash or control the intake potency. There is some suggestions now that a lot of craving to take cannabis is the really the desire for nicotine, not cannabis. Cannabis is classed as a very mildly dependant drug like caffeine but tobacco is classed as extremely addictive like heroin.

Many national and international studies have found that drivers intoxicated with cannabis, pose a high risk of road accidents. For example a 10 year Victorian study found a 7 times greater risk of a fatal accident. Other studies clearly show that cannabis impairs vehicle control, including the ability to stay in one lane, as well as slowing reaction time. (ANCD Report, Dec 2004).

Ah, again the assumption that all cannabis users are completely irresponsible. No one should drive with any mind altering substance including alcohol or prescription drugs. Why would cannabis smokers be different from alcohol drinkers? You may start to see the tactics used by DFA a little clearer now.

Highly respected medical practitioners in Australia and overseas have confirmed that cannabis use is linked to psychosis. Dr Brian Boettcher, Consulting Psychiatrist in the UK reports that ‘Cannabis is capable of precipitating psychosis, going on to the chronic cases in people who have had no family and personal history of psychiatric illness. There have been suggestions that such people may be the ones who have started cannabis in their teens’.

The main medical argument by groups like DFA is the claim that it leads to psychosis. What is known is that people with a history of metal illness in their family may be prone to similar symptoms. The big question is whether those who smoke cannabis without a generic link to metal health have a greater chance of suffering psychosis than those who do not use cannabis. Again moderation is the key. Heavy use of cannabis may cause psychotic conditions but does moderate use? This has never been conclusive. DFA cite a quote from a report by Dr Brian Boettcher. What they leave out from his report is:

The drug induced psychosis seen when Cannabis is the main substance being abused is distinct phenomenologically from other psychosis. It is unusual for such a psychosis to occur without other drugs being involved to some extent and so it is difficult to tease out the differences between the effects of Cannabis and other drugs. -Dr Brian Boettcher

Then a few years later, Reuters wrote an article about a report from Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark:

They found that individuals treated for post-pot smoking psychotic episodes had the same likelihood of having a mother, sister or other "first-degree" relative with schizophrenia as did the individuals who had actually been treated for schizophrenia themselves. This suggests that cannabis-induced psychosis and schizophrenia are one and the same, the researchers note. "These people would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis" Based on the findings, the researcher says, "cannabis-induced psychosis is probably not a valid diagnosis. It should be considered schizophrenia." -Reuters

This brings up a very important point.

It's "very common" for people to have psychotic symptoms after using marijuana, such as hearing voices, feeling paranoid, or believing one has some type of special ability, Arendt said. But these symptoms typically last only an hour or two. "It's a very important distinction, this 48 hours criterion," he said. -Reuters

So it still seems there is still no conclusive link to psychosis from moderate cannabis use. The psychotic symptoms are just that, symptoms or psychotic conditions not psychosis itself. Like a drinker who becomes violent or depressed when drinking, a cannabis users who suffers adverse effects should probably abstain. DFA again assumes cannabis users are incapable of controlling their use. Any normal person who has negative effects like psychotic type symptoms from taking something will most probably avoid it. The very reason I don’t smoke cannabis is because it has an adverse effect on me. I get paranoid and stay extra quiet until the effect wears off. I know many people like this who simply don’t take alcohol or other drugs that have unpleasant effects. So why do DFA suggest cannabis users will continue down a self destructive path as opposed to most drinkers? Many of the reports that suggest cannabis does cause psychosis are statistical witch hunts that process millions of possibilities until they find a result they are looking for. This is known as junk science and is well known throughout the research world. The often used “gateway theory” where cannabis leads to harder drug use is an example of this. Because X once used Y and now has psychosis then X must be a precursor for psychosis. Using their logic, alcohol and tobacco have more chance of being a precursor for psychosis than cannabis. In other words, certain groups seek out particular results to add credibility to their often tenuous agenda. DFA is one of these groups.

Norman Swan: And how often, you talk about bias and statistical bias in the reporting, to what extent do you see the statistics manipulated in order to get a positive result? Dr. John Ioannidis: Well one does not necessarily need any manipulation. Let's say that someone does the perfect study, the perfect epidemiological study, the perfect exploratory analysis hunting for associations. However there are ten other teams that do equally perfect studies and only one is lucky just because of chance to find some particular association with some exposure or intervention of interest. Now if we had the benefit of reporting the results of all ten, or eleven investigations with equal weight and equally soon and in equal detail then we would not be misled, we would see that here are ten studies that find nothing, and there's one that's found something but if you pull them together you see that there's absolutely no effect, nothing to be seen, so it's just statistical rules that say if you run too many studies and too many analyses a few of them will show something that is just chance. However in the current publication environment researchers are really urged to report that they have made discoveries, competition is very fierce, they have to say that we have found something and they probably don't have much time or even willingness to report and comment on what 'negative results', even though these studies may be just as important and as well conducted. So what we end up seeing many times is just the tip of the significant results that appear due to chance. -The Health Report, ABC - The validity of published research findings

The facts are clear.

• Most users of cannabis will NOT become psychotic.
• Those with a history of mental illness in their family including themselves have a greater chance of psychosis.
• Some of the negative effects of cannabis abuse appear as symptoms of psychosis but only last for an hour or two.
• Cannabis use may be damaging to the young brains of teenagers.

There’s a lot of maybes in cannabis research but the fact is most users have no problems whatsoever. The small group who are prone to abuse cannabis or have adverse effects should not use it. It's simple really and I fail to see why DFA do not ever mention this. Instead, DFA are well known to cherry pick their data and write their own biased conclusions. Paul Gallagher from DFA Watch gives an excellent example in the article, Drug Free Australia; telling you what you think.

So far as cannabis use and birth defects is concerned, a Commonwealth Department of Health publication to medical practitioners warns of foetal brain development, relative prematurity, smaller length and head circumference, malformations, higher rate of miscarriage and perinatal death. A US study found a 10 times greater risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants of marijuana- using mothers. Other effects in the new born are lethargy, slow to gain weight, increased startle reflexes, tremors and possible long- term developmental and behavioural effects. All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.

No one should take potentially harmful drugs whilst pregnant including alcohol, cannabis or prescription drugs! Again, a no brainer. I keep asking this question ... why do DFA assume cannabis users can’t control themselves? Any normal person would not risk hurting their unborn child and this includes cannabis users. There is a greater chance of a drinker risking the health of their child so why aren’t DFA promoting the more dangerous situation?  But DFA leave the best to last. In the last paragraph, the last line is the all encompassing attitude and misleading tactics of DFA. Apart from the last line, the last paragraph explains about the possible effects of cannabis on pregnant mothers but is irrelevant if the mother doesn’t use cannabis. There’s lots of grisly descriptions and damning statistics but still has nothing to do with non users or anyone not pregnant. It only mentions medical conditions and statistics on the risk of non- lymphoblastic cancer to infants. But what seems to be the case of a lazy writer, they strangely throw in:

“All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.” LOL. Did they forget a paragraph? Maybe they got confused with their own lies and deceit? The last line does though give an appropriate ending to their poor attempt at providing serious information. It is out of place, out of context, not relevant to the current subject, misleading, sensationalism, incorrect and a lie.

Politicisation of Science

One of the main problems with society is the political system. It was while I was watching an interview with John Howard many years ago that it struck me how politics had taken a new turn. Howard said in an interview that the most important issue in Australia was the liberal party winning the upcoming election and they needed to focus all their efforts on achieving that win. Although it’s probably true for most politicians, I had never publicly heard this before. It had always been Australia’s future or the like that was a precursor for winning an election, not simply the need to win. By being able to openly say this in public, is it any surprise that more and more fundamentals of society would become political fodder in the quest to win an election? Those days are gone where politicians needed to appear logical. No longer did they take directions from facts, public needs or science. Basic freedoms were replaced by national security and the politics of fear. Common sense was replaced with idealism and patriotism. Science and medicine were replaced with religion and so called ‘family values’. Howard went on as PM for 3 terms over 11 and a half years. One of his profound contributions to science was silencing NGOs and government research organisations that had conflicting views to the official government spin. Research and facts became secondary to government policy and those who dared release conflicting data were faced with losing government funding. This led to the rise of groups like Drug Free Australia (DFA) whose sole purpose was to push the government’s own agenda that would normally be criticised by proper research groups. DFA were supporters of the US model that wouldn’t allow federal funding for programs that conflicted with modern christian ideology like safe sex education and needle exchanges. With most opponents now silenced in Australia, Howard had the opportunity to completely remove conflicting science from drug policy and the next step was to produce his own “research” which came via the Bishop Report - “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Luckily Howard was booted from office and the Bishop Report was doomed to bottom of the rubbish bin. Scarily, Howard had came so close to achieving the unthinkable and nearly implemented a non medical solution to a medical problem based on politics and moral/religious ideology. In the US, healthcare is an example of how medicine has become so politicised that it’s actual purpose has been overlooked and instead has become a political hot potato about socialism vs. right wing ideology. But science/medicine has been heavily politicised in nearly every country - abortion, nuclear power, alternative energy, mental health, creationism in science class etc. The two prime examples that stand out are climate change and drug policy. Both issues have been taken out of the scientific arena by the right because a pragmatic solution might upset their corporate interests or encroach on their safe, pseudo religious ‘family values’ ideology. Taking advantage of an upcoming election, a group of renown professors in Canada decided that they should write a letter to the major political parties and voice their concern. The politicisation of science had cost millions of lives worldwide and was risking the future of our planet. But can a group of experts actually get through to the decision makers? The letter is a real eye opener when you look at the content and you may start to realise how backward mankind has slipped considering how far we have progress scientifically.

Dear Sirs and Madam: We are a group of concerned scientists writing to call for the end to the politicization of science and related due processes in Canada. Below we highlight some recent examples of the mistreatment of science in Canada: • The closing of the Office of the National Science Advisor 1 • The misrepresentation of climate change science 1, 2 • The muzzling of Environment Canada scientists 3 4 • The cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service 5 • The political appointments to the board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada 6 • The halting of the Prison Tattoo Pilot Study and the suppression of the results of this study 7 • The firing of the Head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 8 • The suppression and misrepresentation of research related to Vancouver’s Supervised Injection Site 9-11 The above represent blatant examples of instances when: • Systems developed to provide non-partisan scientific advice were undermined, interfered with, or dismantled for political reasons; • Science was interrupted, suppressed and distorted for political reasons; • Scientific uncertainty was manufactured in instances where none existed; • Reputable scientists were attacked because the results of their work were unpopular or inconsistent with the views of political parties; While science is not the only factor to be considered in political decision-making, ignoring and subverting science and scientific processes is unacceptable. In light of these concerns, we are calling on all political leaders to articulate how they will work to improve Canada’s track record with respect to the treatment of science and related due processes. Yours truly, Canadian Scientists Against the Politicization of Science Encl.: Name List of Signatories References: 1. Science in retreat. Nature 2008;451(7181):866. 2. Smith C. Climate scientist claims Stephen Harper's government has muzzled experts. The Georgia Straight 2008 September 25th, 2008. 3. Munro M. Environment Canada scientist told to toe the line. National Post 2008 January 31, 2008. 4. CBC News. Minister stops book talk by Environment Canada Scientist. 2006 April 6, 2006. 5. Reuters. Canada slashes spending on wildlife protection: CBC. 2007 September 19th, 2007. 6. Hebert PC, Attaran A. A plea for transparency in Canada's "new government". CMAJ 2007;176(5):601, 603. 7. Kondro W. Prison tattoo program wasn't given enough time. CMAJ 2007;176(3):307-8. 8. Curry B. Fired watchdog quits nuclear board. Globe and Mail 2008 September 23, 2008. 9. Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS. The Canadian government's treatment of scientific process and evidence: inside the evaluation of North America's first supervised injecting facility. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):220-5. 10. Wodak A. Going soft on evidence and due process: Canada adopts US style harm maximization. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):226-8; discussion 233-4. 11. Kerr T, Wood E. Misrepresentation of science undermines HIV prevention. CMAJ 2008;178(7):964. Sent to: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP Prime Minister of Canada The Honourable Stéphane Dion, PC, MP Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition Mr. Gilles Duceppe, MP Leader of the Bloc Québécois Mr. Jack Layton, MP Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada Ms. Elizabeth May Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Below is an article from Canadian Medicine. Canadian Medicine is the editors' news blog of Parkhurst Exchange, a monthly medical magazine based in Montreal, Canada.

Canadian researchers demand end to political interference Canadian Medicine Two can play at this game, it seems. Medical researchers and scientists upset by the "politicization of science" in Canada have decided to turn the tables by interjecting themselves into the political scene as the October 14 federal election draws near. A petition protesting the "recent mistreatment" of scientific research will be sent to all major federal political party leaders in the coming days, Canadian Medicine has learned. The petition was drafted by a group of doctors and researchers that has routinely butted heads with Stephen Harper's Conservative government over the last two and a half years: Julio Montaner (above), Thomas Kerr and Evan Wood. Dr Montaner has become an academic of worldwide renown as the recently appointed president of the International AIDS Society. The three men are all professors of medicine at the University of British Columbia, but they are best known for their roles at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which under their leadership has produced some of the world's top medical research on supervised-injection sites, focusing largely on the downtown Vancouver facility Insite. Insite has served as a flashpoint for the conflict between the Conservative government and scientists. Despite overwhelming evidence of Insite's benefits, the government withdrew funding and then fought a battle in court earlier this year to attempt to establish jurisdiction over the project so that it could shut it down. The attempt failed when a BC judge ruled that the federal government was not within its rights. Soon after that, Health Minister Tony Clement -- who asked the attorney general to appeal the BC decision -- went on the offensive, drawing considerable opposition from the medical community when he questioned the ethics of physicians who support supervised-injection. The conflict over Insite is not the only complaint the petition mentions. Others include: "the closing of the office of the National Science Advisor" "the misrepresentation of climate change science" "the muzzling of Environment Canada scientists" "the political appointments to the Board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada" "the cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service" "the halting of the Prison-based Tattoo Pilot Study" In a letter dated October 6, addressed to "friends and colleagues," Drs Montaner, Kerr and Wood write: In light of our concerns we have prepared a letter addressed to the leaders of the federal political parties and have asked them to make clear the action they are prepared to take to end the politicization of science in Canada. We are inviting you to become a signatory to this letter. We will send this letter to all major media outlets in the coming days.

How DFA Logic Exposed the Real Fifth Columnist

A Special Report By Greg Iverson

To some in the AOD sector, the name of a Mr. Gary Christian may be well known. To those of us that contribute to the ADCA list-server called ‘Drugtalk’, this name is instantly recognisable (and is normally followed in the thought process with a mental groan). 

Drugtalk is a subscribed e-mail list. It was set up so that workers in the AOD sector had a space to share information and debate topics of varying importance to the sector. 

Gary, and his fellow cohorts at Drug Free Australia (DFA – a right wing Christian-based think tank and pot-stirrers that aims to influence government policy on AOD issues in Australia), are fond of making a variety of accusations on this subscriber list against a range of people in the sector, mainly because their methodologies disagree with the Zero Tolerance approach that Gary and his ilk firmly (and blindly) believe in.

I have contributed to the debates on this server for many years now and have been a keen observer of the behaviour of Mr Christian and the DFA and, like others on the email list, I am often aghast at the statements that are placed there by this group … especially this individual.

His behaviour includes;

• An attempt at linking Dr Alex Wodak (one of the most pre-eminent and respected AOD professionals in the country) with illegal activities in Afghanistan (when in actuality, Alex was there advising on HIV and Harm Minimisation issues) 

• Constant accusations that the AOD sector is staffed and led by “so-called experts” who are only interested in keeping people addicted, so that they have a livelihood (despite the fact that – as has been pointed out to him several times – it would be more profitable for the workers in the field to actually BECOME drug pushers and dealers. Far more profit on that side of the fence than ours and with the vagaries of government funding being what it is, a whole lot more secure!)

• Accuses anyone who contemplates any alternative to the Zero Tolerance approach as being a ‘drug pusher’ or dealer which accounts for at least 90% of the sector

• Regularly twisting words around in a debate, placing statements never uttered by an opponent into their posts

• Flatly refusing to read any research that runs counter to his pre-determined ideology – and then comments on that research as being a load of ‘junk-science’ (while openly admitting that he has not actually read the paper. Pretty neat trick that one)

• Using the ‘reliable’ sources of right wing media commentators such as Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine for the source of his arguments.

There are more items that I could write about here in relation to Gary, but that list would continue for many, many more pages.

Suffice to say, it seems that this man has simply no idea of any real life experience when it comes to dealing with substance abuse issues. If he has, then he has ignored any lessons from this engagement. 

His approach to the sector is informed by one thing only, and that is his Seventh Day Adventist beliefs. Don’t get me wrong; I have a lot of respect for certain church affiliated groups in the AOD sector. Without them, a lot more people would be suffering a lot more harm if their work and engagement in the sector were to suddenly cease. But when the dictates of your faith blinds you to the reality of a situation, then unfortunately, the harms can only increase to both the individual and society. Fundamentalism is dangerous – in religion or in any other field. This was displayed as far back as the Crusades in the Holy Land and even today, the issue is still with us.

But recently, there has been a couple of debates on the list that I feel have finally shown Gary in a very real – and ultimately, truly hypocritical light.

One of these debates centred on a Mr Julian Critchley – who held the post of the Director of the UK Anti-Drug Co-ordination Unit in the Cabinet Office. When he first gained this position, Mr. Critchley states he was: 

“more or less agnostic on drugs policy, being personally opposed to drug use, but open-minded about the best way to deal with the problem. I was certainly not inclined to decriminalise.”

During his time in this position, after looking at all the data and research that his work exposed him to, he realised the futility of the prohibitionist approach and became a supporter of the legalisation side of the debate. The full text of his post can be seen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/07/the_war_on_drugs.html   - his post is No. 73. 

He then resigned from his position, realising that his change of stance meant that he could no longer support official Government policy and therefore, his position was untenable.

Gary’s strange response to this was to post the following item:

The UK media are treating the Julian Critchley opinion on legalisation as if an anti-drugs analyst has rolled over and come to see the light of an opposite point of view.  This is hardly likely given the history of drug control in Britain.

 

Nobody would say that Mike Trace, as deputy to drug tsar David Hellawell, was ever really against illicit drug use, especially when he was exposed by the Daily Mail as communicating with George Soros drug legalisation Generals Nadelmann and Neier asking their feedback on his plan to create a unified web of organisations which would influence politicians against the United Nations Conventions. In his own words:

 

QUOTE

‘The basic objectives remain the same - to assemble a combination of research, policy analysis, lobbying and media management that is sufficiently sophisticated to influence governments and international agencies as they review global drug policies in the coming years. The key decision points remain the reviews of the European Union Drug Strategy in 2003 (and again in 2004), and the political summit of the UN Drug Programme in Vienna in April 2003.’ 

UNQUOTE

 

This is the guy who said that he, when accepted as head of the UN Drug Demand Reduction section, said he was going to act as a fifth columnist to undermine te UN.  Just as well Sweden's Torgny Peterson outed him and the Daily Mail got him sacked.

 

So why would we not assume that Julian was not another Mike Trace, posing as someone working against illicit drug use, while laying the groundwork for its legalisation?

Until this point, no one had mentioned Mike Trace, nor was there any links placed between Mr Trace and Mr Critchley – and yet, Gary’s comments seem to indicate that because person X (Trace) believes fact Y, then Person Z (Critchley) must think and behave in exactly the same way as person X. Huh?

As you can imagine, some of us were baffled by his sudden linking of these two individuals and queried Gary on this matter. Many posts were placed to and fro on the list where there were accusations of fifth columnists everywhere and conspiracy theories in every corner, spouting from Mr Christian’s keyboard. From one email alone, there was this:

My statement about Critchley is simply that if Trace was working as a fifth columnist, secretly undermining British and UN drug policy while appearing to be in support of it (what else does a fifth columnist mean?), there is no reason to think that Critchley's stance on legalisation has not always been the same…. 

and

So Paul, my statement that we should not merely assume that Critchley changed from being against drug use in society to a supporter of drug use in society is premised on something very real and very historical. 

It still didn’t make sense to any of us on this list. How can someone be accused of being a fifth columnist if they acknowledge their change of stance and then instantly resign from their post when they realise that this change means that they cannot work towards the goal for which they had originally been employed. It sounds like an honourable action to me, rather than anything under-handed.

But then, this confusion was not unusual in a debate with Gary – as we all knew on the list. He is well known to change boats midstream and attempt to take debates off into areas that only his imagination could dream up. As I stated above, this would include subtle word substitutions in quoting others, which changed the intent of their original statement (I should correct that and say ‘sometimes subtle’ – at other times, the change was so dramatic, that it was laughable).

The second separate discussion on the list that started me thinking about Mr. Christian’s leaps of logic was when Gary was called to task over his attempts at sabotaging the UN Beyond 2008 Vienna NGO consultations. For those that are unaware, Mr Christian embarrassed himself (and his fellow Australian and New Zealand delegates) at this forum in a very amateur attempt to destroy the proceedings in a last minute accusation of unfair processes. To this day, he still claims that his points were valid, despite being dismissed by the UN representatives, the Forum’s organisers, all of the other Australian and New Zealand delegates and (from what I have come to understand) around 90% of all the other delegates that attended. Complaints on his behaviour were received from all over the world – literally. Read the story here

It was then that the penny dropped.

 

I finally realised why Gary felt justified in his ‘leaps of logic’. This linking of Julian Critchley’s thought processes to Mike Trace’s actions and his constant accusations of conspiratorial activity and Fifth columnist individuals started to make sense. The revelation involved the realisation that his reactions were all based on his and the DFA’s own actions and approach to AOD work and the sector. 

I would point out just two examples (out of many more that I could discuss in this article) that has led me to this conclusion:

Point 1

The DFA (where Gary is one of the lead individuals in the organisation) claims to be an AOD peak body, yet no AOD organisation that I know of openly acknowledges them as their lead organisation or recognises them as their peak body. The members of the email list had asked for the evidence of this support many times, and the only response that we received from Mr. Christian was a demand on the politicians in our Federal Parliament who support drug law reform to ‘come out’. Then, and it seemed only then, would the DFA release this information to the general public (at least, according to Gary’s posts to the list).

It is my contention that there is a world of difference between the public acknowledgement of sector support for a ‘peak’ NGO and a politician’s public stance on a controversial subject. 

Indeed, this is one of the reasons for the very existence of the NGO sector. One of the purposes of NGOs is to provide professional advice to the body politic, so that politicians can base their law-making decisions on un-biased conclusions drawn from valid research data – no matter how unpopular those decisions may be in the wider public sphere or the political arena. This separates the ‘politics’ of a situation from some hard and unpopular choices that sometimes have to be made.

We had often seen on the email list how invalid the research that the DFA and Gary himself would quote could be; we had been forced to comment on this fact on many occasions. 

They used this rather shonky material to influence government decisions – and for some time, this had worked under the Howard government; it can only be hoped that this will now change. The current Prime Minister has already indicated that it will, which was a relief to all in our sector to at least hear those words – we wait to see whether the actions do follow through on the spoken commitment from Mr. Rudd to make their decisions on valid research data and the advice of ‘experts in the field’.

   The DFA itself seems to be no more than an organisation that has been set up, not to undertake any research itself or support the government sanctioned and approved Australian Drug Strategy, but to secretly work against that strategy in an attempt to undermine it. This is a fifth column approach to an accepted strategy if ever I have seen it.

Remember that the DFA is a body that was granted seed funding from the Federal Government for it’s very establishment, and so as such, they have an obligation, as do all in the NGO sector, to be accountable to government policy and to assist in maintaining that policy.

Point 2

The other point is Gary’s behaviour at the recent United Nations Vienna Beyond 2008 NGO Forum. He – in an attempt to negate the deliberations of the meeting – made a speech on the final day, just before the closing ceremonies were due to commence.

From what I can surmise of the situation, Gary, the International Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy  (in whose name he made his rather foolish statement) and the DFA, who he was there representing in the discussions, seemed to have all been engaged in the process of consultation from the beginning – with no expressed qualms about the processes involved – at either the regional discussions or during the 3 day Forum itself. 

Then, after the period of regional consultations had been conducted, the Vienna meeting held and the discussions at the Forum concluded - to the extent that a consensus had been reached by all the delegates at the Forum - Gary, on this very last day, after as I said, discussions had concluded, proceeded with an attempt to undermine and negate the whole process by publicly declaring it invalid from the very start – to the jeers of most of the delegates assembled.

  If Gary, the DFA, or the International Taskforce, felt this way, then why was no commentary on the process given until after the Forum was basically over? There would have been ample opportunity to make this commentary during the process. 

But no, Gary – and by extension the Taskforce and the DFA - waited to see what the outcome was and then decided to dismiss the meeting as a complete waste of time and an irrelevancy. 

This was purely because the result of the meeting was not their desired one. The recommendations coming from this meeting would largely have the support of most of those in the AOD sector – particularly in Australia. In other words, Harm Minimisation was finally gaining some acceptance in United Nations’ considerations. This was despite Gary and his cohorts’ best attempts at the meeting to push their minority view onto the other delegates, with US Government officials supporting them in the background.

This was an attempt at sabotage by Gary and the Taskforce, purely because the outcome did not suite their agenda and pre-conceived notions.

I ask, is this not the actions of a fifth columnist? Certainly seems that way to me. 

So, these two points got my ‘light-bulb’ blinking. Is it any wonder, when an individual, who has a shown and a proven modus operandi and can see no other approach, to then believe that because he operates in this manner, all others involved in the sector also follow this methodology? Makes sense to me and does explain Mr Christian’s extremely odd behaviour and strange ‘leaps of logic’ rather well, don’t you think?

Not to mention his fear of any reputable research that may question his beliefs. Don’t start me on his beliefs around ‘creation science vs. evolutionary science’ – that will have to wait for another time…

About the Author: Greg Iverson:

Greg worked in the HIV sector for around 15 years. He needed a break, so decided to move cities and start a new career path. Somehow, he ended up in the Youth AOD sector in Melbourne and has never looked back. After 5 years of working in AOD, Greg has come to realise that the Harm Minimisation principles that he learnt during his time in the HIV sector gave him an excellent grounding for tackling the challenging work in Youth and AOD issues. He remains open to all forms of approach to AOD work, firmly believes the work should continually evolve and develop, and that there is more than one answer to the complexities of the sector. 

Questioning Christian Behaviour at Beyond 2008

Last week at a drug policy strategy conference for NGO’s worldwide, Drug Free Australia (DFA) secretary, Gary Christian raised the hairs on some necks when he made an unplanned speech criticising the selection process. Some delegates were offended and many complained about Christian’s embarrassing behaviour which left the Australian and New Zealand delegation dumbfounded.

Is success of the conference being overshadowed by this selfish behaviour? The next few weeks will tell.

The United Nations are currently preparing a 10 year review of the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) which dealt with international drug issues. Next year, the Commission of Narcotic Drugs will meet in Vienna to present it’s findings and prepare policy for the following 10 years. This meeting is unique as it will be considering for the first time, the views of non-government organisations (NGOs), who recently met to prepare their strategy. The participants in the “Beyond 2008” NGOs Forum, included 13 consultations in all 9 regions of the world and involving over 500 NGOs from 116 countries and 65 international NGOs.

The conference was a success and a Beyond 2008 declaration was produced which encouraged the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to dramatically change their approach especially concerning the human rights of drug users. The focus was on evidence based policies and consideration for the well being of those inflicted with drug addiction. Our regional delegation had 18 delegates representing 42 NGO’s from Australia.

Unfortunately, some of the US delegates upset the flow of proceedings by intervening and demanding that certain terminology not be used. These groups who oppose Harm Minimisation, now refer to it as “harm maximisation” and they regularly interjected when it was mentioned that current drug policies were causing damage to society or harming drug users. The general conclusion that tough drug policies were not working or the suggestion that drug users had valuable input was also met with objections and unnecessary delays. Incidentally, one of these groups was the US Drug Czar’s office who were not even an NGO and yet were seen to be the key trouble maker and led the interruptions and delays at the conference. 

Although 20% of all delegates were from the US, only a minority reflected the hard-line views of the US government. Ms June Sivilli from the US Drug Czar’s office appeared to be directing the interventions of these extremist and often mean-spirited US delegates.

The flagrant involvement of a government official in the operation of this NGO conference breached the meeting’s rationale. Some US-based anti-drug delegates intervened frequently to obstruct and delay proceedings, reject any suggestion that current drug policies cause any harm, oppose references in the text to 'harm reduction' or participation of people who use drugs in the policy making process.

-Dr. Alex Wodak. Australian Delegate.

But the worst was yet to come when on the final night before the closing ceremony, Gary Christian from Drug Free Australia (DFA) decided he wanted to stop proceedings and give a long, drawn out and unplanned speech. To the shook and dismay of the entire conference, Christian started criticising the selection process although he had been involved in that very process for several months. It seems that the outcome from the majority of the attendees was not to his liking and the DFA ideology was not popular amongst his peers except for some US delegates who heavily supported Zero Tolerance. Several tables were upset and jeered Christian who claimed to represent some participating groups who knew nothing of the speech he was giving. From some reports, I have heard that Christian made a complete fool of himself and lowered the integrity of DFA.

The Australian organisers, The Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) received many complaints as did the the Beyond 2008 organisers. The ANCD has also made an official complaint to DFA. Strangely, all the trouble stirred up by Christian has seemed to go over his head as he posted his complaint on the official mailing list of the The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). A day latter, Gino Vumbaca, the Executive Director of ANCD, posted a condemnation of Christian’s actions on the same mailing list, expressing his disappointment and explaining away Christian’s complaint as unjustified and improper. I am sure there will be much discussion to come and undoubtedly, Gary Christian, in typical form, will try to justify his actions. Gary Christian is infamous for his “logic loops” which shift from one point to another until he digs a hole bigger enough to fit the entire DFA board in it.

The statement was not prepared or discussed with any other members of the Australia and New Zealand regional delegation – with many having now expressed their strong dissatisfaction and opposition to the statement, indeed I am not aware of any member of the delegation that has supported the statement

-Gino Vumbaca, Executive Director - ANCD

Drug Free Australia (DFA) was part of John Howard’s plan to dismantle Harm Minimisation and effectively change our drug policy to follow the lead of the US and Sweden. With funding of $600,000 over 3 years, DFA have contributed nothing of substance to the drug debate except fear, irrational  junk science and religious ideology. Their research is often wrong, theoretical and regularly criticised by industry professionals and peers. Nearly every member is from a strong evangelistic/religious background including Australian Family Association, Seventh Day Adventists, The Salvation Army, Festival of Light and the patron is a TV evangelist who heals the sick on stage using the powers of Jesus. Is DFA the right organisation to be guiding drug strategies in this age of science and medical based treatments? Their resistance to evidence based policies and the proven success of Harm Minimisation leaves them out of step with experts in the field and encourages them use more extreme measures to be heard.

Drug Free Australia will continue to strive for pro health alternatives to illicit drugs and to ensure that harm prevention is not only a household catch phrase, but a reality, put into good practice, throughout our country. 

-DFA Website - About DFA 

Gary Christian embarrassed Australia, New Zealand, The ANCD, other delegates, DFA and himself. I just wonder if the severity of the situation will sink in or will he brush it off as being misunderstood? Since he bravely posted his complaint on the ADCA mailing list, I gather he is preparing to defend his position, not that it is unexpected. Gary has a reputation for not backing down in debates, even if the subject has to shift focus several times to achieve his goal. Disappointingly, Gary’s actions will effect others in the field especially those who worked so hard to represent Australia/New Zealand at the Beyond 2008, Vienna conference. The ANCD deserve much praise for their hard work, as do the participants who attended. The Beyond 2008 declaration is an excellent outcome and all involved should feel proud. 

I also need to advise that the statement provided to the VNGOC by the Drug Free Australia delegate after the Vienna Forum included even further criticism of the Australian consultation and delegation than is included in the statement posted here. I am not sure why this is the case, but again repeat my disappointment, as well as the disappointment for what I understand to now be all other delegates from Australia and New Zealand, as well as many other NGO delegates from around the world that have contacted me about the statement.

-Gino Vumbaca, Executive Director - ANCD

Gary Christian will probably never change his views but he at least should accept that the Beyond 2008 declaration is representative of most NGOs in the field of drug and alcohol treatment. If he has any integrity, he should also apologise to those he misrepresented and upset.

RELATED LINKS:

Beyond 2008 Regional Report: Australia and New Zealand

Global Drugs Policy Begins to Stir

Dr. Alex Wodak’s Letter to Crikey