Showing newest posts with label Crime. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Crime. Show older posts

Sunday, 12 September 2010

Heroin Addiction is a Bitch

I hate heroin … I also love it. I love it when I have it but hate it when I don’t. It’s an easy drug to love and an easy drug to hate but since most of us can’t afford to be pinned all the time, there’s probably more hate than love. Yep, using heroin is definitely a love-hate relationship.

Luckily, I’m not currently using heroin everyday as I am on substitution treatment. My heroin use is limited to about once a month, which might sound like a lot to non-users but believe me, it’s nothing compared to the usual 90 or so hits needed each month when you’re an active user. 

But this is where we need to separate the myths from reality. There is a big difference between the public perception of heroin addiction and the actual cycle of heroin-methadone-relapse-heroin-methadone-relapse... etc. For a longer term addict, using heroin is not about the high but something far more alluring … normality. The quest to feel some of those human traits like optimism, happiness, contentment etc. far exceeds the need to get high. Substitution treatments like methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone might help with withdrawals or be a life changer for many but the stark truth is that they can also help fuel depression and emptiness. I have experienced this first hand and I must admit … I didn’t like it. The methadone blues are not on my wish list for Santa.

When a person is addicted to something they cannot control how they use it, and become dependent on it to cope with daily life.

I once experimented with using heroin everyday instead of methadone and surprisingly, I found myself far more productive and level headed than I had been in years. It cost me well over $1500 for the week and I needed to use three times a day, including an afternoon hit at work. Not exactly conducive with leading a normal life.

What if you could use heroin everyday without having to worry about the law and the money to afford it? Is it really any different to the 700mg of Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) that I take everyday? Is it any different to a daily dose of methadone? Some countries prescribe heroin (diacetylmorphine) to longer term addicts who don't respond to other treatments and so far, it has been very successful. Unfortunately, Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is not available in Australia so any attempt to self medicate with heroin, must be done illegally and expensively, away from medical supervision.

Methadone remains a pretty good first-line treatment, but either the switch to heroin or using heroin as an adjunct obviously has increased effectiveness for this difficult population.

Heroin addiction is a bitch. But so are the current alternatives. Those who do not respond well to the available treatments like rehab, detox or substitution treatment, are in a real bind and inevitably turn to crime to fund their addiction. This is a costly outcome for both the user and society, especially when there is a ready solution like Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT). I often think that if I could just get my hands on enough money, I could stock up on diacetylmorphine(heroin) and start to experience a better quality of life. My depression goes away when medicated on heroin and I start to feel somewhat human again. When dosed with heroin, I don’t look like a junky nor act like one but instead, I am capable of performing in a high pressure job, contributing to my community and living a productive life. The simple truth is that heroin can be an effective anti-depressant for some people.

But the dreaming must stop. After 40 years of anti-drug propaganda and the never ending message that heroin addicts are dysfunctional, dangerous sub-humans, the idea that heroin itself might be an effective treatment is just too much for the public and politicians to grasp. Each year, we churn out more and more opiate addicts and although many will finally kick their habit, many will not. Out of this remaining group will be those who were born with a predisposition for opiate addiction e.g. an imbalance in their brain's chemistry, some of the 66 known genes that promote the need for opiates, a persistent impairment of synaptic plasticity in a key structure of the brain etc. It may be impossible for some people to comprehend but this small group of addicts have a physical problem and are not simply selfish losers with no will power. But try telling that to the powers-that-be or a largely ignorant public.

We have an increasingly clear idea of how genetic and early childhood influences lie at the heart of the development of addiction and how the neurochemistry of the brain renders users unable to simply stop using.

In 2010, it’s abysmal that a so called “advanced society”, continues to promote laws that punish these people. At the top end are the addicts that sell drug to other addicts. Amazingly, they are lumped into the same class as child molesters, murderers and rapists. But these small time user/dealers are not doing it for profits or the lifestyle but to self medicate a medical condition. It’s a catch-22 situation where they have 2 options, both of which attract harsh legal penalties and public vindictiveness. When confronted with the choice between crimes that hurt people like stealing, theft, robberies etc. or simply selling drugs to friends or other users, most will choose the latter. But deciding not to inflict any pain on others and instead, choosing a victimless crime like drug dealing, we condemn them with as much venom as possible. 

Many countries even have mandatory drug laws that take away the power for a judge to intervene when there are mitigating circumstances. Incredibly, in 1956, the US passed the first mandatory sentence via an act that made a first time cannabis possession offence a minimum of 2 to 10 years with a fine up to $20,000. It was repealed in 1970. In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (112g) of a hard drug. The most famous mandatory sentence is the “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law that has been implemented in many countries since the 1990s. This has caused a huge increase in drug users being jailed for lengthy periods - usually 25 years to life. You know something is greatly amiss when being caught 3 times for drug possession can send you to jail for life or when small time user/dealers are imprisoned for longer than violent criminals.


Dealer Who 'Hated' His Heroin Addiction Jailed
By Staff Reporter

A "SMALL-SCALE" heroin dealer who sold £10 wraps to undercover police officers has been sent to jail for five years and eight months.

John Birchall, 45, of Morgan Avenue, Torquay, "hated" his addiction to heroin but found he could not survive without it, Exeter Crown Court was told.

He pleaded guilty on a previous occasion to five counts of supplying and intending to supply the Class A drug to undercover officers in May.

Judge Barry Cotter said he had no choice but to impose a minimum seven-year term, minus credit for a guilty plea, as it was the third time Birchall had been convicted for a supply offence.


The judge said: "It inevitably has to be a custodial sentence."

Prosecutor Emily Pitts said Birchall had been caught as part of a police sting operation.

Two undercover officers made inquiries on the street about heroin and Birchall, known as "Scouse John", was identified as a man who could "sort them out".

Three wraps containing £10 of heroin were supplied to the officers on separate occasions. Each wrap contained 0.1 grams of the drug.

Three more wraps, weighing 0.5 grams, were sold on another occasion. A further wrap, which turned out to be ibuprofen, was sold in a fifth deal.

Anne Bellchambers, in mitigation, said Birchall has been showing improved signs of dealing with his addiction.

She added: "He says he's been taking drugs since he was 14. He hates it but it leads him back into this sort of offending every time.

"It is small-scale supply with little or no profit — under £200 for these deals."

Judge Cotter said his hands were tied about what sentence to impose considering his past offences.

"The reality of the matter is that after an undercover police operation, you have been convicted of a third drug trafficking offence.

"That means I have to impose a particular sentence."

The judge added: "The brutal reality is that society has taken a view of those that continue to be involved in drug trafficking that if you persistently get involved in such conduct, you face a long custodial sentence."

He said he hoped Birchall would "still have the motivation" to quit drugs when he got out.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of supplying the Class A drug, one of being concerned in its supply and one of offering to supply the drug.

He was given a total sentence of 68 months.


Related Articles

Friday, 30 April 2010

It's Official - "Tough on Drugs" Causes More Crime & Violence

Now, it's official. Police crackdowns and prohibition causes more violence and crime than it stops.

I have been saying this for years ... drug related violence is because of our drug laws not drugs themselves. The presumed connection between drugs and violence is severely misguided by the public. Any mention of alcohol violence, hold-ups or street thuggery and some people will ignorantly claim that being high on drugs is to blame. This is simply not true. The violence stemming from drugs is either from addicts committing crimes to procure money for their habit or those in the drug business fighting it out on the streets. Whether they are intoxicated is not important as most drugs rarely cause aggression or violence. It's amazing the reaction I get when I make this comment online which often results in being called a looney, an idiot or an obvious drug user. 

The whole point is, the effects of drugs do not usually make someone violent. It's the illegality that causes violence. Business disputes between drug dealers are not settled in court but on the streets with guns, knives or very large thugs. Think about an addict committing a break-in - it's because they need money to buy drugs that they have run out of. They are most most likely not high at all but suffering massive withdrawals which makes them desperate enough to commit the crime. The drugs they seek are illegal which makes them very expensive and crime is usually the only way addicts can afford them. It's a nasty cycle in today's climate of drug hysteria.

The usual course of action by police, under direction from the government, is to crackdown heavily on drug users and dealers. This has been the failed strategy for 60 years plus. We have completely ignored the havoc caused by US alcohol prohibition and overlooked the mounting evidence from experts while the "War on Drugs" continues to reek carnage on society. As the number of victims increase under the "Tough on Drugs" strategy, we have to ask ourselves if we will continue to allow politicians to base their decisions on political posturing, misguided personal beliefs and pressure from moral crusaders. Science and evidence should determine drug policy, not politicians taking a position on drugs because it is politically advantageous to do so. 



Crackdowns On Drug Dealers Led To Rise In Violent Crime, Study Finds
By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter
April 2010

Police crackdowns to cut the supply of illegal drugs by removing dealers and criminal overlords actually lead to rises in drug-related violence, gun crime and murder, according to an international study. A review of 20 years of research into drug enforcement has found that attempts to snuff out the trade in illegal substances have the opposite effect to that intended, by creating a power vacuum when drugs barons are imprisoned which is rapidly filled by competitors eager to fight each other for the newly-vacated territory.

Campaigners for the reform of drugs policy said the findings, which follow numerous studies showing that prohibition has failed to stop narcotics from becoming more plentiful, added to the pressure on governments to declare the "war" on the £200bn global illicit drugs industry over, and adopt a policy of controlled legalisation.

The study by the Canada-based International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) found that heavy-handed tactics, ranging from attempts by the American-sponsored Colombian armed forces to eradicate drug cartels to the arrest of dealers in Sydney, had led to increases in violence. Often, this violence is fuelled by criminals arming themselves to profit from price rises caused by seizures of drugs or the dismantling by police of dealing networks.

The assessment of 15 reports on the relationship between violence and drug enforcement, presented yesterday at an international conference in Liverpool, found that 87 per cent of studies reported that police seizures and arrests led directly to increased violence.

Dan Werb, co-author of the ICSDP document, said: "The convention has been that law-enforcement action to reduce the availability of drugs, thereby increasing drugs prices and decreasing supplies, also has the effect of reducing violence. Not only has prohibition been found to be ineffective with regard to price and supply; this study has also shown that it is accompanied by an increase in drug-related violence.

"Prohibition drives up the value of banned substances astronomically, creating lucrative markets and worldwide networks of organised crime. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that any disruption of these markets through drug-law enforcement seems to have the perverse effect of creating more financial opportunities for organised crime groups, and gun violence often ensues."

The study, which highlights the drug-related violence gripping Mexico as an example of the vicious circle fuelled by crackdowns, said researchers in Florida had recorded a five-fold increase in violence and property crime linked to drug arrests. Another study of six US cities found that attempts to shut down crack markets led to increased homicide rates in four of them.

A six-year Australian investigation into drug dealing in Sydney found that the arrest of dealers and subsequent disputes between rivals had contributed to murders and a substantial rise in non-fatal shootings with handguns.

Campaigners for a regulated market in drugs said the study bolstered the argument for legalising drugs and introducing a sliding scale of controls, ranging from membership of coffee-shop style premises for the sale of cannabis to licensed pharmacies selling cocaine.

A spokesman for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said: "We have a government in pathological denial of the negative impact of a prohibition-based drugs culture. Which other global industry worth £200bn is left in the hands of organised criminals rather than being taxed and properly regulated?"

Related Articles








Sunday, 18 April 2010

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

What is more important? Stopping; violent crime, theft, robberies, drug overdoses, thousands being murdered in drug wars, the spread of HIV and HCV etc. or trying to stop drug addicts getting high? History has revealed 2 things - you can’t have both and trying to stop society from using drugs simply does not work. So, which would you choose? ... stopping associated crime and violence or stopping users getting high?

I’m sure most rational people would prefer to cut out nasty social ills like robberies, HIV, HCV, violence and murder but I am just as sure that some muffins would be so anti-drug that they would refuse to answer or try to change the question. 

Most informed people already know that prohibition causes crime and violence whilst not having much success at lowering drug use but how about the public? Do they know this or do they simply find it difficult to acknowledge due to decades of misinformation from the authorities? Is legalisation or handing out free drugs to addicts just too radical for the everyday citizen even if it cut crime rates by half and changes society dramatically for the better? According to a recent survey by McNair Ingenuity Research, 66% of Australians think people would be more likely to try or use drugs if legalised but only 5% confess that they would indulge. 

One of the survey’s most interesting results concerned what people thought would happen if illegal drugs were decriminalized. Although only 3% of people said they would personally use drugs more often, 62% said they thought other people would. The results were similar when we asked whether you’d be more likely to try drugs at all (only 5% said they would, but 66% thought others would).

It seems we define the people who can’t be trusted with drugs as everyone but ourselves.

-Kirsten Drysdale - Hungry Beast. ABC TV

Giving drugs to drug addicts is not new. Most western countries supply highly addictive opioids like methadone, buprenorphine and suboxone to heroin addicts. Other countries give out Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) and even free heroin. These programs are heavily regulated and restricted to opiate abuse like heroin because opioids are basically non toxic. The most success has come from supplying heroin to long term addicts who have failed repeatedly in other treatment programs. The success or prescription heroin has prompted a growing trend for drug experts to push this strategy. 

The main problem is that many addicts don’t qualify for the program because of the strict guidelines and heroin is the only targeted drug (a limited number of cocaine addicts were also given their drug of choice in the latest UK scientific trial). What about those who missed out on the trials or those who are just not “hard core” enough to make it to a permanent program? What about users of cocaine, methamphetamines and prescription medications? Once again it seems that politics and ideology are robbing addicts of valuable treatment options. 

As an addict in Vancouver for 38 years I was certain I would have no problem attending the program. It seems they only took Downtown addicts which gave them a very limited demographic and my calls went from wait to forget it. You could contact the NAOMI people if you want info but you'll be searching through an unpublished project.I hope you discuss parameters as most trials make getting off of heroin a prerequisite, which kills the project as you may well imagine. Harm reduction and working and happy clients should be the goal.Don't let them set you up to fail. 
-Comment by Terry McKinney. Vancouver BC (28/05/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

How imbecilic can we be when we know that most established addicts will use street drugs everyday but the idea of government supplying safe and free drugs is simply out of the question. Up will come that old argument that dishing out illicit drugs is dangerous to their health and we should be trying to get people off drugs, not encouraging them. These reasons might be fine in prohibition utopia where drugs can be eliminated but not in the harsh realms of reality. And that’s the problem. The people who make these important decisions aspire to a “Drug-Free World” which has more chance of being a Disneyland theme park than materialising on planet earth.

I was in Canberra when the trial was set to happen. Now a decade later, failed relationships, failed uni attempt, lost employment and still raging habit, i often wonder where i'd be now if it had've gone ahead. damn howard! i wrote to chief minister stanhope last year at 3am, hanging out, begging for him to think about another try. 6 wks later he replied (shock horror) and said he was 100% behind it, but couldnt do anything til howard was gone. well hes gone.......Methinks its time i start emailing again :) 
-Comment by plzHoldSteady (22/01/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

I always wonder how many lives we could have saved and how many addicts would now be clean if the proposed ACT heroin trials weren’t poo-pooed by Howard. Given the success from every heroin trial overseas, it must be quite a few. Imagine how many lives we could save or change for the better if skipped the strict criteria for candidates of prescription heroin. What if we simply opened it up to anyone who has been on methadone for more than a year or had attended a rehabilitation program and failed? And what if we supplied all dangerous drugs like ice, cocaine, heroin etc. and even ecstasy and other drugs that can be contaminated with filler products? What is the real downfall of this idea compared to the benefits? The same groups would continue to use the same drugs and those who don’t use drugs would continue to abstain. The sky would not fall in and societal chaos would not engulf mankind. Some dedicated users might increase their intake but many more will take advantage of extra treatment options and quit using drugs. 

I don’t think the public has correctly been told what would happen to their surroundings if illicit drugs were distributed by the government or legalised. The most obvious effect is that crime would drop by about half and several billion dollars would be saved every year. This are not just a slight decrease in costs or small improvements but massive, unparalleled changes to crime rates and government spending. Whole police departments used to fighting drug crimes would be relocated to other, understaffed divisions ... including more cops on the street. The back log in courts would eliminated. Huge percentage drops in overdoses and deaths. Organised crime losing their most profitable source of illegal income. Prison populations dropping so much that not only won’t new jails be required in the near future but some actually might shut down. Dangerous meth labs would almost cease to exist. You would be able to buy flu tablets with pseudoephedrine again without having to produce your passport, a personal reference from an astronaut or leaving your first born as collateral. Convenience store workers, pharmacy staff and train travellers  won’t have to worry about desperate junkies robbing them anymore as they will cease to exist. The CourierMail, Adelaide Advertiser, Daily Telegraph etc. will have to expand their subject matter or lose 8-10 pages. The quality of drug education will improve ten fold. Young adults will no longer be so susceptible to a permanent criminal record. Teen drug use will drop as the mystique of drugs will be gone as well as unscrupulous drug dealers who don’t ask for age ID. The problem of alcohol will be addressed more rigourously and classed as a dangerous drug. And so on...

Ironically, easier access to drugs will improve life for users and addicts. Their health will greatly improve and many of them will be able to work once again. They will be able to re-establish relationships with their families and no longer run the risk of being imprisoned. Many of the health issues for drug addicts are the result of prohibition, especially for heroin users. Opiates including heroin are basically non toxic and can taken for decades with very few physical problems. Haven’t you ever wondered why street junkies on heroin look sick but those on pain medication look normal? They are both taking the same sort of drug but the most visible heroin addicts in society often don’t eat very healthily, sleep where ever they can, have very few clean clothes and are more focussed on dodging the police and paying for their next hit. Take away the high cost and the stigma attached to drug addiction and they get to live much more productive lives. In the countries where heroin is prescribed to addicts, there has been substantial improvements in their health and personal lives. Most of them cease any criminal activities and many find work. 

The big question is - why are other countries looking into evidence based strategies like heroin assisted treatment and related programs while Australia keeps regurgitating tired, old drug policies that fail every year?



New Approach To Drugs Seeks Footing In Costa Rica
April 2010

The drug debate in Latin America has started to shift.

For decades, possession and addiction in the Americas have been treated with a zero tolerance policy. Efforts to slow drug use have largely centered on arresting and punishing users.

But packed jails, overburdened court systems, and a growing consensus that the war on drugs is failing are transforming the discussion.

In August, 2009, Argentina's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to prosecute people for possession of drugs for personal use. One month later, Colombia's high court issued a similar ruling.

In Peru and Bolivia, there are now small clinics that give cocoa leaves to crack addicts in order to manage and lessen their addiction. Bolivia's President, Evo Morales, has asked the United Nations to eliminate the narcotics label on the coca plant.

Now, in Costa Rica, high-ranking officials are joining the tolerance dialogue.

In March, Costa Rica's Chief Prosecutor, Francisco Dall'Anese, proposed offering free drugs to addicts as a way to compete with dealers. Squeezing in between the addict and the supplier to offer a cheap alternative would “break” the finances of drug pushers and “reduce demand,” he told the Spanish–language daily La Nación.

“Here, what we would do is preempt the business of drug dealing,” he said.

The reasoning behind the proposal is fairly simple. By stopping the flow of income to drug dealers and eradicating the addict's need to steal in order to buy another fix, crime rates should drop.

This idea is not revolutionary. Countries in North America and Europe have used harm reduction techniques such as methadone clinics for years to treat heroin addiction.

These efforts have been regarded as successful in reducing crime and curving addiction by medical journals.

Dall'Anese's proposal, though, does represent a fundamental shift in Costa Rican drug policy, as providing addicts with free, chemical substitutes would take the drug addiction problem out of the hands of law enforcement and place it at the doorstep of public health officials.


Related Articles

Sunday, 21 March 2010

The Drug Law that Sends You to Jail for Helping

A disturbing new trend is emerging in Australia that I thought was only happening in the US. Anyone who supplies drugs for someone or helps them inject is being jailed if that someone dies from an overdose. This is not aimed at unscrupulous criminals who sell contaminated drugs but anyone including dealers, friends or fellow drug users who physically provide the drugs. Someone overdosing using too much heroin should not be the fault of the person supplying the drugs whether they are dealers or not. They are simply handing over a product for a buyer/user/friend who will obtain the product somewhere, regardless of where it comes from. What if it’s just two friends and one of them has been elected or volunteers to pool their money and purchase the drugs for both of them? According to the courts, it doesn’t matter and prison is a certainty.

I have trouble grasping this concept because it is singling out drug users. Not long ago, the courts dealt with someone trying to sue a bar owner who served drinks to an intoxicated man just a few hours before he had a fatal car accident. This raised the issue of responsible serving of alcohol and whether bartenders had an obligation to refuse alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated. Some countries and states have made it an offence to serve intoxicated patrons but one thing is for sure, they won’t being going to prison for 10-15 years.

One reoccurring issue that also worries me is how some users are being arrested for injecting someone who has asked for their help and then overdoses. I have been in this situation dozens of times where either myself or a friend needs help injecting. Not once has it ever entered my mind that you could be arrested if one of us overdosed and died. What sort of bizarre system punishes you for helping a fellow human to do something safely? Something they are going to attempt regardless of whether you help or not? If you have seen the movie, Requiem For A Dream, you will understand what can happen to your arm if it becomes infected from injecting. Here’s a hint ... it ain’t pleasant! Do you really just refuse a friend who needs help and risk them getting abscesses in their arm or even worse ... wasting the shot of heroin?

And lastly, today’s conspiracy theory. Are these laws designed to torment drug users? There’s very little logic involved and it only applies to drugs so someone, somewhere has made a conscious decision to write a law that can create turmoil between friends intravenously using drugs. Whatever reason was behind these laws, I cannot see one benefit. It will though increase deaths and harm, create tension between drug using friends and fuel the fear of prosecution that already prevents users from ringing an ambulance when someone overdoses.


Woman Jailed Over Fatal Heroin Sale
By ACT court reporter Katherine Pohl
Posted March 2010

A 32-year-old Canberra woman who sold a fatal dose of heroin to another user has been sentenced to six months in jail.

Melissa Anne Bennett from Rivett pleaded guilty to trafficking a controlled drug.

She sold nearly 2 grams of heroin to a woman in May 2008.

They injected half a gram together before the woman left.

The buyer was later found dead in a Watson hotel.

The ACT Magistrates Court heard Bennett has mental health issues but she has improved in recent times.

Magistrate Beth Campbell said supplying heroin can have horrendous consequences, as seen in this case.

But she acknowledged the death of the woman had weighed on the defendant's mind.

She sentenced her to 18 months in jail but that will be suspended after she serves six months.



Mckinney Woman Sentenced To 10 Years For Heroin-Injection Death Of Best Friend
By Ed Housewright
March 2010

MCKINNEY — A woman convicted of killing her best friend by injecting her with heroin was sentenced Monday to 10 years in prison.

Kristin Metz, 29, had faced a possible life term in the 2008 murder of Stevie May. The lesser sentence resulted from an agreement between prosecutors and Metz’ defense team that was approved by state District Judge Ray Wheless. No witnesses testified during the punishment phase.

As part of the deal, the defense waived the right to appeal.

"It was a fair sentence," said lead prosecutor John Lee Schomburger. "There was not any intent to kill."

Defense attorney Tom D'Amore said he also was pleased with the sentence: "It was done...to avoid the risk to our client of a greater sentence."

A Collin County jury found her guilty Friday of causing May’s death by injecting her with heroin at her request.

The verdict in the unusual trial came moments before state District Judge Ray Wheless was about to send the panel home for the weekend. When the verdict was announced, May's mother, Kathleen May, sobbed openly in the courtroom.

A few feet away, Metz, 29, appeared calm. But she broke down in tears moments later as her attorney, Scott Palmer, sought to reassure her.

"How could they do this?" she pleaded. "How do I have any faith in justice?"

The case against Metz was considered a rarity because she was charged with murdering someone who authorities acknowledge was voluntarily committing the same criminal act: possession of heroin.

Evidence at the trial shows that at the behest of May, Metz purchased heroin from a Carrollton dealer so they both could use it back at the McKinney apartment Metz shared with her husband. But when May had trouble injecting herself, Metz — her best friend — did it for her, authorities say. The 21-year-old mother died inside Metz's apartment.



Body In Troy, Ill., Cemetery Was Heroin Overdose
By Terry Hillig
March 2010

TROY, ILL. — A man found dead in a cemetery in Troy this week suffered a heroin overdose during a drug binge with a longtime friend who has been charged in the incident, police said Thursday. 

The body of Chad Q. Bell, 29, of Troy, was found Tuesday in Friedens Cemetery, along Illinois Route 162 in that community.

His friend, Michael E. Bovinett, 36, also of Troy, was arrested Wednesday night and charged Thursday with drug-induced homicide, concealment of a homicidal death and obstructing justice, officials said.

Major Jeff Connor, deputy commander of the Major Case Squad of Greater St. Louis, said the two men had used drugs together in the hours before Bell's death. 

According to the charges, Bovinett injected Bell with heroin, which killed him.

Prosecutors claim Bovinett concealed the death by leaving Bell's body in the cemetery, and lied to investigators about it.

Bovinett, of the 100 block of Wayland Street, was held in the Madison County Jail in Edwardsville in lieu of $1 million bail.

Connor declined to say where the men spent the hours before Bell's death, but he did say that heroin was becoming more prevalent.

"Heroin is becoming a very cheap drug, and it's easy to find," the detective said.

Bell was last seen alive about 9 p.m. Monday. Connor said it appeared he was already dead when Bovinett left the body at the cemetery.



Port Huron Woman Charged In Heroin Overdose Death
March 2010

Shelly Lynn Campbell, 35, of Port Huron has been charged with providing the heroin that led to a Port Huron man’s overdose death.

Larry Thomas Sobczak Jr., 31, was found dead Jan 30 in his Pine Street apartment. The St. Clair County Medical Examiner’s office determined he died of a heroin overdose. Investigators believe Campbell provided Sobczak with the heroin.

She was arraigned Sunday and is being held on $10,000 bond. A preliminary exam on the charge of delivery of a controlled substance causing death is set for March 9.

Friday, 16 October 2009

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

An update on the proposed new cannabis laws for WA.

Although the currently elected Liberals were ecstatic and clapped loudly for Colin Barnett’s plans it seems the public are not too happy to turn back the clock on the state’s cannabis laws. An article from PerthNow has attracted a whopping 544 comments to date with 99% of readers hammering Barnett’s new policies. This is the most commented article I have ever seen on any News Ltd. website. Also it’s not one of the main newspaper sites for Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane but Perth. Murdoch’s newspapers are notoriously aimed at conservatives and red necks which explains the negative feedback usually shown towards liberal drug issues. Why then, are readers of PerthNow raising so much opposition to tougher cannabis laws?

PerthNow had a poll that asked the readers, Does WA need tougher laws governing marijuana?
Out of 2364 votes, 43% said yes, 48% said no and 8% said What day is it?

Lies, Lies and More Lies
You might want to visit the government’s website and read their media release, Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation. Beware - it contains the usual deceptive, anti-drug rhetoric that has dominated the world’s political scene for decades.

It starts with the claim that the political enemy is “Soft on Drugs”. When translated from political babble, it usually means, “smart” on drugs via an attempt to deal with the drug issue rationally and realistically. The soft-on-drugs term is dying a slow death and is still only used by those who see the public as naive enough to swallow their spin. You may recall John Howard calling everyone soft-on-drugs when they mentioned any strategy that differed to his “Tough on Drugs” mantra. Barnett concludes in his opening paragraph that the soft-on-drugs approach “has left lives ruined”. This is a lie as drug use has continued to decreased under the so called soft-on-drugs strategy. Where is the media on this? Where is the opposition disputing these claims? To the contrary, Barnett’s tough-on-drugs proposal has been shown over and over again to ruin lives . How can such a blatant lie not be picked up?

Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

A gateway drug? The only time cannabis is a gateway drug is when users are forced underground and exposed to dealers and users of hard drugs. This happens when a government doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. But this is not what he meant. Barnett is subscribing to the old myth that cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drugs. This very claim should render the whole media release as fallacious political dribble. The gateway theory has been scientifically debunked many times over and is only used by desperate anti-drug nutters who are woefully detached from the drug issue. Even hardened anti-drug warriors have mostly given up on the gateway theory which again shows up Barnett as an out-of-touch meathead who is pushing through laws based on nothing more than his own misguided views. Where is the science and evidence behind such ridiculous claims? And again, why isn’t the media and the opposition shooting this down? Barnett is flat out lying and quoting urban myths as the basis for laws that affect millions of people is outright dangerous.

What about the claims of schizophrenia. This was ruled out last year by scientists as merely the effects of cannabis mimicking the symptoms of schizophrenia. When the effects of cannabis wore off, so did the supposed schizophrenia. Psychosis was also ruled out as being caused by cannabis except for those who have a family history of metal health problems. Barnett has lied again. For such an important health related law to be passed, you would expect that some scientific evidence be provided. The problem is that the latest evidence is completely polar to Barnett’s claims and any real attempt at providing evidence would be shot down is minutes.

The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

This statement is just not acceptable from a state premier or a representative of the people. All evidence and research has shown that tough laws and penalties have never significantly deterred overall drug use in any country. Why hasn’t someone pointed out to the government that what they believe and what is true are completely different. If they really do believe this then the Barnett government need to step down now. Western Australians should not be governed by a group so obviously stupid ... and capable of such blatant lying.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS)
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN)? Just how has it failed? The main reason cited is that only 5% of those issued with a CIN attended a drug counselling course. Under Barnett’s new Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS), anyone issued a CIRS will have to attend a Cannabis Intervention Education course or face further charges. Again, a lack of understanding from the government has cannabis users earmarked as drug addicts or needing drug counselling. This is ludicrous as cannabis causes far fewer problems for users and society as does alcohol, which is legal and freely available to adults. Cannabis is not addictive and very few people end up with a dependency problem. Alcohol on the other hand is highly addictive and over a million people are classed as problem drinkers. Wouldn’t it make more sense to force those involved in alcohol related offences to be sent to counselling?

The elephant in the room is still the unanswered question - if the current policy is working why change it? Apart from the excuse that only 5% of those issued a CIN actually go to a drug counselling class, Barnett has simply said that the previous laws are soft-on-drugs. The way I see it is that it all boils down to Barnett’s personal views and modern conservative ideology. That or the South Park send up of anti-drug warriors and their simpleton approach ... drugs are bad, mmkay. There is no actual new evidence or findings to warrant these new drug laws. If anything, new strategies should be put on trial that follow the success of the current laws. The amounts seem fine at 30 grams and 2 plants and don’t need increasing but maybe we should consider legalising the 2 home grown plants for personal use. This would certainly remove many dealers and keep users away from them. There’s a whole range of ideas that could be implemented using proper, scientific monitoring to find the right balance between public acceptability and the right to use a relatively safe drug. The benefits would include the reduction of drug dealers, crime and unnecessary criminal records.

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Should we be going back to laws drafted 28 years ago? Worldwide experience has clearly shown that drug laws from the 1980s have caused societal carnage and ruined millions of lives including many preventable deaths. To ignore these facts is downright criminal and condemns many Australians to a life of misery. The 28 year old laws are steeped in ignorance and “Just Say No” drug hysteria which might appeal to Barnett and his troupe of silly old men but they should be left to history as a reminder of what not to do.

What we knew back then is a fraction of what we know today. Science and evidence based research has replaced ideology and moral panic. The many myths created back then have been debunked or laughed off and many of the policies have been the most unsuccessful ever put into law. For a current government to try and re-establish these dangerous and failed policies should send shock waves through the community. It appears that a large percentage of Western Australians understand the ramifications of such foolish actions and will undoubtedly be heard in the next election.


Sun 11 October, 2009
Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation [link]

Portfolio: Premier

New anti-cannabis laws will mark the start of the Liberal-National Government’s fight to turn around eight years of a soft-on-drugs approach by the previous Labor government which has left lives ruined.

Premier Colin Barnett today announced the Government would this week introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003 and make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Young Offenders Act 1994, sending a clear message that the current State Government did not endorse illicit drug use.

Mr Barnett said the cannabis-related legislation was the first in a series of steps the Government would take to send a clear anti-drugs message to the community and toughen penalties for people who broke the law through drug-related offences.

According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, cannabis was the most widely used illicit drug in Western Australia with an annual usage rate of 10.8 per cent.

“The Liberal-National Government is committed to tackling both the demand and supply sides of the illicit drug problem through strong law enforcement policies, education and rehabilitation,” the Premier said.

“Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.

“The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs, but we also recognise the existence of a criminal record has a serious impact on a person’s future employment prospects. At present, once a conviction is recorded, it remains on a person’s criminal record for at least 10 years.

“Under the Government’s proposed laws, a person convicted of minor cannabis possession offences will be able to apply to have a conviction spent after three years, provided they are not convicted of further offences during that period.

“This approach ensures minor drug offenders who demonstrate they are prepared to take responsibility and rehabilitate themselves are given an opportunity to turn their lives around.”

The new cannabis-related laws will:

• prosecute the possession of more than 10 grams of cannabis. This is a reduction from the previous Labor government’s stance where prosecution only occurred when it was more than 30 grams
• result in subsequent offences for possession being prosecuted as criminal offences
• prosecute people for cultivating cannabis plants. Under the previous Labor government’s regime, people could grow two cannabis plants per person, per household without facing criminal charges
• make it illegal for cannabis smoking implements to be sold to anyone, including adults. Currently it is only an offence to sell these implements to children
• increase fines for the sale of smoking implements. The new laws will allow for fines of up to $5,000 for sale to an adult and up to $10,000 for sale to a minor. Bodies corporate will be fined equivalent to five times these amounts.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS).

“The CIRS has a primary focus on education and takes a firm, yet compassionate, approach to people found to be in possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis,” Mr Barnett said.

“Under the new scheme, anyone caught will have no option but to attend a Cannabis Intervention education session within 28 days of the offence or face prosecution through the courts.

“Unlike the soft system we have inherited where people can be issued with infringement notices ad nauseam, juveniles will only be eligible for two notices and adults for one.

“After that they will be prosecuted for further offences.”

A person will not be eligible for a CIRS if they are caught cultivating or in possession of plants.

The new CIRS sessions will differ significantly from the current CIN scheme because:
offenders will not have the option of just paying the fine and avoiding the education session
if a person fails to attend the session they will be prosecuted.
This year, under the soft system the Liberal-National Government inherited from Labor, only five per cent of offenders actually participated in an education session.

The Premier said further anti-drug legislation would be introduced in coming months.

“The next steps will be to amend legislation to enable courts to impose a harsher sentence on dealers who sell or supply illicit drugs to children, irrespective of the location of the sale or supply,” he said.

“Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 will provide offences for exposing children to harm or to the danger of serious harm from the manufacture of illegal drugs, such as amphetamines, or the unlawful cultivation of illegal hydroponically-grown plants.

“The Government will also move to ban the sale of drug paraphernalia, including cocaine kits.”

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.

With the repeal of the Act, all registered Cannabis Infringement notices will be deemed ‘paid’ after they have been registered with the Fines Enforcement Registry for 12 months. This will allow police to destroy their cannabis stockpile which is retained for evidentiary purposes.

Premier's office: 9222 9475



Related Articles:
The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier

Monday, 12 October 2009

The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead

After months of threatening us that he will prove without doubt that he is a dickhead, WA Premier Colin Barnett has finally done it. Yes, Colin Barnett is now officially a first class, top notch dickhead. While we all secretly knew it as he continued with his promise to wind back the successful drug strategies of the previous government, we can now be safe in the knowledge that Barnett is indeed, a dickhead. But let’s not mince words here. Barnett is more than a dickhead, he’s a bumbling, self righteous, agenda driven, fat fuckwit.
Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.
-The Australian

At yesterday's state Liberal conference, Barnett gave a rousing speech that had fellow Libs frothing at the mouth. His “Tough on Crime” election promise was finally being given the go ahead with the introduction of several new “tough” laws “in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs”. The problem is that in his haste to be “tough” on thugs, street crime and violence, he has forgotten to tell us that it is really about cannabis. His sweeping statements about weapons and violence were intermingled with the supposed danger of cannabis. But the real reason for bringing the new stop and search laws is not about thugs and weapons but catching drug users. Imagine if he announced that WA is enacting the toughest stop and search laws in Australia to catch pot smokers?
The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett 

All the rhetoric in the world doesn’t change the fact that the effects of cannabis cause no violence on the streets, street crime nor does it make thugs out of people. That honour goes to alcohol. But this isn’t about the facts associated with cannabis use. It’s about his personal views and ideology, his political position and his inability to separate fact and fiction. For dickheads like Barnett, the real world is broken and only a conservative utopia will save mankind from moral collapse. Most of societies problems are because of drugs and a lack of “family values”. Violence, corruption and ecological carnage is secondary.
He (Colin Barnett) accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives
-The Australian

Ironically, under the current drug policy introduced by the previous government, cannabis use is declining and less people are unnecessarily given a criminal record. What is the government trying to achieve by changing the drug laws? This has never been answered by the Barnett government but instead replaced with the usual anti-drug rhetoric we have become accustomed to over the last 4 decades. It also comes at a time when the world trend of many countries is to follow science and evidence by decriminalising or considering the legalisation of cannabis. Arguments against cannabis have been greatly diminished in the last 12 months with research showing that links to mental health problems are non existent for those without pre-existing conditions. And like the Gateway Theory, claims of today’s cannabis being 10-20 times as potent have been debunked. Even that old myth that cannabis makes users lazy and unmotivated has been disproved. The real crunch is that the legal drug alcohol is much, much more harmful and dangerous than cannabis.
We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority.
-WA Premier Colin Barnett 

So, what is Barnett and his band of merry men going to achieve by being tough on crime? Under all the hype, there is officially only one non-drug related new law - being able to search people without a reason. But we know the real agenda for this. The “tough on crime” speech was really about cannabis. Barnett has proved how far he will go to push his misguided views onto the public. But this is not just about some fat, over paid dickhead putting in place silly laws but the serious, real world consequences of his actions. Banning drug paraphernalia will lead to some serious problems for drug users. Having access to properly made crack pipes stop the spread of blood born disease like HIV/AIDS and Hep C. Purchasing a bong will stop users making their own which can give off dangerous fumes from plastic containers. To be blunt, not having these products kill people. Lowering the amount of cannabis that someone can carry will drive up the rate of convictions. Again, normal, responsible adults are facing jail or a criminal record. The previous limit of 30 grams covered those who bought the common amount of an ounce or half an ounce. Now, half an ounce will put them just 4 grams above the legal limit. This of course means that a cannabis user has to visit an illegal dealer more often and this leaves them more vulnerable to being caught. Even with the 10 year limit on your criminal record for minor drug charges being dropped to 3 years, the new laws still increase the risk of being labelled a criminal. Those caught with less than the new 10 gram threshold are forced into treatment whether they need it or not. This is an old trick used in the US to give anti-cannabis groups a rubbery statistic to further their cause. For example, the latest claim from anti-drug warriors in the US is that cannabis is much more harmful than it used to be. Their evidence - most of those in treatment are now in for cannabis abuse but years ago hardly anyone came in for cannabis issues alone. What they don’t tell us is that 99% of those in treatment for cannabis abuse are involuntary patients. Yep, forced in there by the courts, family interventions and work related issues. Watch this issue arise soon in Australia.

I once asked if dickheads grow on trees in WA. We all know the answer but the trees that produce these dickheads appear to be a certain type ... politician trees. I am noticing that these trees are not just native to WA but are found all over Australia. They must just bloom early in WA.

Police Empowered For West's Drug War
The Australian
By Amanda O'Brien
October 2009


WEST Australian police will have the nation's toughest powers to stop and search people under a plan, unveiled yesterday, which removes the need for them to show any grounds for suspecting an offence.

Premier Colin Barnett said it was intolerable that people caught with weapons or drugs were being let off in court because police could not establish that there were sufficient grounds to search them.

He said legislation would be introduced within weeks to allow anyone to be stopped and searched without reason in a bid to reclaim the streets from thugs.

To thunderous applause at yesterday's state Liberal conference, Australia's only Liberal Premier said law and order was a defining issue at the September 2008 election.

"I make no apologies," he said. "We will act on that small minority that destroy the quality of life and the amenity of this great state for the silent majority."

Mr Barnett said he knew he would be accused of breaching civil liberties but it was a small price to pay if people felt safer.

He thrilled delegates by promising to also introduce legislation within days to throw out the former Labor government's contentious 2003 drug laws, which allow people to grow two cannabis plants per household without criminal charge.

He said it was a ridiculous law and any cultivation would be an offence in future.

The amount of cannabis triggering prosecution for possession would also be slashed from 30g to 10g, and selling paraphernalia such as bongs and pipes would become illegal. "It is absolutely disgraceful that, under Labor's approach, we have lottery kiosks selling bongs in Western Australia. Not any more."

He said the community had shown at the election it wanted strong laws.

The police commissioner would designate particular areas as "stop and search" zones, and the public would know where they were. Entertainment areas such as Northbridge in Perth and Fremantle were priorities.

"Police will have the right to go up to anyone they wish to and introduce a stop and search power," Mr Barnett said.

"It will not be an invasive search; it will be comparable to the sort of search and screening that takes place for any citizen getting on an aeroplane.

"We will reclaim Northbridge and other areas of entertainment and hospitality for law-abiding young people, for women to go there alone, for families and older citizens."

He said Labor had failed on law and order, and he accused the former government of trying to con the community into believing cannabis was harmless, when it was ruining lives.

"The cannabis of today is not the cannabis of the 60s or 70s. It is far stronger, it is harmful," he said.

Under the new laws, anyone found with more than 10g of cannabis, enough for 10 to 20 joints, would face a criminal conviction. Anyone with less than 10g would be forced to attend counselling.

In his only concession, the Premier said criminal records for minor drug offences would be expunged after three years, rather than 10, if no further offences were committed.



Related Articles:
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier