New Media Vs Old Media

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

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

-- The Drum: The Power Of New Media (by Jeff Sparrow)

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

The Drum Comments:

Terry Wright

28 Jul 2010 5:10:09pm

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder the government wants an internet filter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK Royal College of Nursing Calls for Free Heroin

The call for heroin assisted treatment (HAT) around the world is growing stronger every year. As more and more evidence is brought forward showing the clear advantages for longer term addicts, the more that it becomes accepted. Even the public are warming to the idea. Of course, the big question is whether Australia will follow the lead from other successful countries or continue with it's nondescript anti-drug campaign.

If you're listening Kev and Nic ... it's time to follow the evidence.

Prescribe Heroin on NHS, says Royal College of Nursing leader

The Times 

By David Rose, Health Correspondent

April 26, 2010

Heroin should be routinely prescribed on the NHS as a way of weaning drug users off their addiction, the head of the country’s top nursing union has said.

Peter Carter, the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), also said he was in favour of “drug consumption rooms” to enable addicts to take drugs safely under medical supervision, and to cut rates of drug-related crime.

Nurses gathering at the RCN’s annual congress in Bournemouth had earlier discussed providing heroin to addicts where other attempts at treatment have failed.

Results of pilot studies in London, Brighton and Darlington suggest that allowing users to inject themselves with the Class A drug under medical supervision can cut local crime rates by two-thirds over six months. Aberdeen has been considered as a potential future pilot location in Scotland.

But some experts are concerned at the prospect of providing legitimate “shooting galleries” in publically-funded clinics, despite the increasing use of methadone, the heroin-subsitute, and a lack of abstinence-based programmes.

Amid controversy over how to treat chronic drug users, members of the RCN, the country’s largest nursing union, discussed the possibility of providing heroin on the NHS today but did not hold a vote for or against the move.

Speaking in a personal capacity after the debate, Dr Carter, the former head of Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, said that he believed in providing drugs, needle exchanges and locations for users to inject substances safely.

“The fact is heroin is very addictive,” he said. “People who are addicted so often resort to crime, to steal to buy the heroin. It obviates the need for them to steal.

“It might take a few years but I think people will understand that if you are going to get people off heroin then in the initial stages we have to have proper heroin prescribing services.” Dr Carter added that more research was needed into consumption rooms, which have been tested in Sydney and Amsterdam.

Experts found the programme stopped users injecting in school playgrounds and stairwells.

“Critics say you are encouraging drug addiction but the reality is that these people are addicts and they are going to do it anyway,” he added.

Radical proposals for the most chronic drug users were first advocated in 2002 by the then Home Secretary David Blunkett. The gave rise to pilot programmes in England in which users inject themselves with pharmaceutical diamorphine imported from Switzerland, under medical supervision.

Preliminary results suggest that of 127 users involved in the pilots, three-quarters “substantially reduced” their use of street drugs, while their spending on drugs fell from £300 to £50 a week. The number of crimes they committed also fell from 1,731 in three months to 547 in six months.

Delegates at the RCN congress Claire Topham-Brown, a nurse from Cambridgeshire proposed the motion for today’s debate, saying that that medical heroin could be provided as a means of “harm-reduction” which despite initial resistance by health professionals, “has now become an accepted model of practice”.

But some nurses disagreed. Gayle Brooks, of the union’s UK safety representatives committee, said: “Where would this stop, cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine and other illicit substances? If we do this for heroin, do we have to do this for other substances, and can the NHS afford this?”

All three main political parties in Britain have stressed the importance of alternative treatments for long-term drug addicts in the run-up to the election.

While the number of heroin addicts needing treatment has decreased in recent years, almost 200,000 people receive methadone each year.

Recent guidance from the Department of Health made clear that prisoners serving sentences of more than six months should be encouraged to become “drug-free” — of prescribed and illegal substances — while in jail.

The Times has highlighted concerns about numbers who may emerge from the criminal justice system with an addiction to methadone; almost 20,000 inmates were put on the drug last year, a rise of 57 per cent since 2008.

Harry Shapiro, a spokesman for the charity Drugscope, said it would support moves towards “a balanced treatment system, with a range of different treatment options”, including providing heroin for a minority of users who met strict criteria for treatment.

“These are people who have been using for a long time and where previous attempts including rehabilitation had failed,” he added. “The results can be encouraging in that this can help people engage in treatment and control their chaotic lives.”

Doctors could regularly prescribe reduced heroin and cocaine to recovering drug addicts until 1968, when the practise required a Home Office license.

Dr Neil McKechnie, of Glasgow University, said any national programme to increase heroin provision on the NHS was “an extraordinary risky proposal”. “Where it is tightly controlled and prescribed to a very small group of addicts — 1 per cent of users — there may be some who can benefit, but we should be wary of a creeping extension of this, as happened with methadone.

“The vast majority of people on methadone are continuing to use illegal drugs, and by definition they are failing on their treatment.

“Most people would say that treatment for drug addiction is about getting people off drugs rather than giving them easy access to drugs.”

Full results from the pilots, overseen by the National Addiction Centre at King’s College London, will be published with the next couple of months.

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

Tico Times

By Mike McDonald 

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

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

What Does Prescription Heroin Really Mean for Junkies?

The Start of Prescription Heroin in Australia?

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

Heroin Assisted Treatment Winning Approval in Europe

Why We Can’t Trust A. Stoner

It appears that NSW Nationals leader and acting NSW opposition leader, Andrew Stoner might be a fan of The Australian Heroin Diaries. After constantly reading about his cohorts getting so much attention here, it seems he has made a gallant effort to join them. And his efforts will be rewarded with some well deserved recognition from us. Here we go.

Andrew Stoner ... you’re a DICKHEAD!

Why is Andrew Stoner a dickhead, you ask? Well, Stoner is the latest Australian politician attempting to gain voter support by spreading lies and attacking the scientifically proven drug policy of Harm Minimisation. The outrage was triggered by a pamphlet from NSW Health - Drug Safety: Guide to a Better Night that was reportedly available to young people at “music retailers, clubs, libraries, TAFE bars, universities” etc. Hmm. Aren’t some of these places restricted to adults over 18 years old? When they say, “For God’s Sake, Won’t Someone Think Of The Children”, it must also mean the kids who illegally enter adult-only premises.

To put out a pamphlet that says Guide to a Better Night ... I think it's sending a message that to have a good night you ought to be taking drugs
-NSW Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner

Yes, he did actually say that. Stoner and others feel that giving warnings and safety advice to drug users/addicts somehow triggers kids to suddenly take up drugs or it sends the wrong message that you need drugs to have a good time. A far stretch by anyone’s imagination. The excitement was obviously having an effect on Stoner and he blurted out this beauty.

Clearly, the NSW Labor government has a philosophical approach that legal [sic] drugs are okay as long as you take them safely (but) we don't want anyone to take drugs.
-NSW Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner

It wasn’t clear if Stoner was most upset about kids having access to the pamphlet or if it was a general swing at Harm Minimisation. I don’t think he actually knew himself and it only got worse when the anti-harm minimisation nutters joined the fight. First there was Brett Murray, the motivational speaker, author and everyone’s favourite youth inspirer in the lucrative Jesus circuit.

I think this is just a sheer sign of surrender
[...]
There's going to be people out there who commit pre-meditated murder - do we make sure that we have a little pamphlet saying `(ok,) but make sure that you do it in groups'?
-Brett Murray in the Sydney Morning Herald

Followed by our old friend, Darren “Maaate” Marton who gave this magical oration:

Why isn't the government coming out with programs educating young people how to say no to drugs and also how to help their friends? Instead, they keep churning out this harm-minimisation philosophy at the expense of our kids
-No Way Campaign Foundation founder Darren Marton in the Sydney Morning Herald

The Sydney Morning Herald were so riveted, they misspelt Darren’s name. And that was it for Darren.

So we have one guy comparing drug use to pre-meditated murder and another warning us that the evil drug policy of Harm Minimisation was costing us our kids. Some profound theories for us all to ponder.

All this hooha because a health safety pamphlet written for 18-29 year old drug users was found at places that young people might visit ... and other age groups as well. What was in this controversial pamphlet that had the NSW opposition apply for it under the FOI act? From various media articles, I found that it includes this:

-Tips for having a safe night
-Urges young people not to use drugs alone
-Advises to ignore friends who put pressure on you to take a drug when you know it doesn't suit you
-Advises young adults about finding the illegal substance that suits their personality type
-And other radical information for our young, delicate readers.

The Opposition yesterday slammed the brochure as a disgrace and families flagged a campaign to force the Government to toughen its anti-drugs messages to young people
-The Daily Telegraph

I want to know why you have to turn 18 to be a drug user/addict. I keep hearing that this information is not suitable for young people. But isn’t this the main flaw behind the anti-harm minimisation argument? - you can not deal with such a complex issue like drug use by slotting people into neat little boxes or using simple, one-size-fits-all policies. If this pamphlet is not available to a 16 or 17 year old, will they simply not take the drug they have just purchased? Is this the type of assumptions you make when you’re so used to regurgitating the, Just Say No myth? I’m sure many anti-drug warriors actually think this way and all the evidence in the world is not going to compete with the back-patting and political point scoring that currently exists.

Acting Opposition leader Andrew Stoner called for the guide to be pulped, saying the harm minimisation message will not solve the problem of drug use
-The Daily Telegraph

I wonder if Stoner really understands what harm minimisation is when he makes such damning statements? Like many of the other dickhead politicians who recently embarrassed themselves, it appears to be a case of political opportunity mixed up with ignorance and personal beliefs. Jumping on the anti-drugs bandwagon might be a proven vote winner but increasingly so, you have to sell your soul to the scientifically challenged group known so fondly as the “Anti-Harm Minimisation Nutters”. That puts Stoner in the elite company of Fred Nile, Steven Fielding, Peter Debnam, Anne Bressington, Bronwyn Bishop, John Howard etc.

Lucky him.

Call To Pulp NSW Government's 'Drugs Are OK' Guide
The Daily Telegraph/AAP
January 2010

A NSW Government brochure advising young adults about safe drug use should be pulped because it sends the wrong message, the state Opposition said.

The brochure Drug Safety: Guide to a Better Night offers tips for drug use and advises young adults about finding the illegal substance that "suits their personality type".

The Government has come under fire for making the pamphlet freely available to young people through outlets such as music retailers, clubs, libraries and universities, with some youth workers saying it "surrenders" in the war against drugs.

But NSW Health Minister Carmel Tebbutt has defended the guide, saying it has been distributed to an 18-29 age group with harm minimisation in mind.

"The Government's first position is that people shouldn't do drugs," she told Macquarie Radio.

Acting Opposition leader Andrew Stoner called for the guide to be pulped, saying the harm minimisation message will not solve the problem of drug use.

"Clearly the NSW Labor Government has a philosophical approach that legal drugs are OK as long as you take them safely (but) we don't want anyone to take drugs," Mr Stoner said.

"This ought to be pulped completely. This is sending a message that illegal drug use is OK.

"We ought to be putting our resources into ensuring kids stay off drugs and, for those who have actually become addicted, into helping to get off drugs."

If the Government does pulp the guide it would be the second time in two years it has been forced to take such drastic action.

In 2008, former health minister Reba Meagher ordered a drug guide aimed at year 9 and 10 students be destroyed because of community outrage over its similar harm minimisation approach.

Related Articles:
Accepting drug use does not mean condoning it - SMH

Will The Daily Telegraph Writer Who Wrote This Crap Please Own Up

It doesn’t get any funnier than this.

An article(below) from The Daily Telegraph pushing that moralist cornerstone, the failed Just Say No anti-drug slogan continues with a story about a mystical cancer cure attributed to the miraculous powers of pending saint, Sister Mary MacKillop. It seems apt that miracles, God and divine intervention are gracing the same page as a moralist pushing tougher drug policies, a Just Say No ideology and drug education made especially to please the religious right, parents and voters. Who needs science, research, facts and weak minded junkies who can’t say no to drugs, when we could have miracles, faith and our prisons full of nasty drug addicts?

Mixing The Drugs Message
The Daily Telegraph
January 2010

WHEN it comes to doing drugs, the message should be "Just Say No".

Drugs are illegal to people of all ages and the problem with these so-called drug safety pamphlets is that they can be accessed by everyone - including impressionable children under 18.

Although the campaign is targeted at the 18 to 29-year-old market, the brochures can be found in places like public libraries or at rock concerts where teenagers are known to congregate.

But the issue should not only be about the age but about a drug education policy which needs to be overhauled.

The Government needs a tougher policy that sends an uncomplicated, unambiguous and more easily understood message to everyone - young and old - to just say no to drugs.

New research revealed at the weekend showed that ecstasy abuse is at an all time high, underlining that the message just doesn't seem to be getting through.

Drug education should primarily be about preventing drug use, not minimising the harm - basically to stop disaster before it occurs. It's too late after the horse has already bolted - and in the case of drug use the consequences can be irreversible.

The Daily Telegraph revealed inappropriate drug material was being circulated 18 months ago, forcing the State Government to act and pulp the material.

It is inconceivable it has happened again. Although the Government's message about drug use is ambiguous there is one thing that this debacle makes clear and that is authorities have run out of ideas on how to control drug abuse by teenagers. 

Miracles Of An Ordinary Kind

KATHLEEN Evans describes herself as an ordinary miracle. She says she was just an ordinary mum who contracted a horrible disease that was expected to take her life prematurely. And then something extraordinary happened - 10 months after doctors delivered her death sentence, Kathleen's cancer was cured.

The Evans family, Kathleen's friends, parish and now the Pope attribute this amazing survival story to the miraculous powers of Sister Mary MacKillop.

Their story has already been met with rolled eyes and sighs of disbelief from those who scoff at the notion of miracles and divine intervention. But they don't care - and nor should they.

At its core, the story of Kathleen Evans and the pending sainthood of Mary MacKillop is not all about religion or the traditions and customs of the Catholic Church. This is a story about hope and a grateful family who once had none.

It is a story about faith, courage and optimism. It is a story about the power of community and it reaffirms that when things get tough salvation - or in this case life - can be found in the support of others.

And that's something that should be celebrated by everyone, regardless of their religious persuasion.

Who writes this crap? Whoever it is, they don’t want their name associated with the piece as there is no author listed. I would’t own up either.

The Government needs a tougher policy that sends an uncomplicated, unambiguous and more easily understood message to everyone - young and old - to just say no to drugs.
-The Daily Telegraph

Hey, that’s a good idea! But hasn’t that strategy been tried before? Yes, the type of strategy that causes all the problems mentioned a few lines later. The very strategy that is now being blamed for tens of thousands of deaths over the last 10 years or maybe even a million deaths since it was first uttered by Nancy Reagan in the 1980s. Blaming the drug problem on Harm Minimisation is simply wrong as HM has never fully been implemented. Only the parts that suit the current policies have been implemented and a spattering of Harm Reduction programs like needle exchanges.

Drug education should primarily be about preventing drug use, not minimising the harm - basically to stop disaster before it occurs. It's too late after the horse has already bolted - and in the case of drug use the consequences can be irreversible.
-The Daily Telegraph

We can’t have both? If the author actually understood Harm Minimisation they would realise that it is made up of 3 strategies and not just Harm Reduction.

Demand Reduction (prevention, education and wide treatment options)
Demand-reduction strategies work to discourage people from starting to use drugs, and encourage those who do use drugs to use less or to stop. A mixture of information and education, along with regulatory controls and financial penalties, help to make drug use less attractive. A good example of a demand-reduction strategy was the graphic health information advertisements that 'Every cigarette is doing you damage'. Treatment is another example; it works to reduce a drug user's need to use drugs.

Supply Reduction (customs, law enforcement, the criminal justice and prison systems)
Supply control strategies involve legislation, regulatory controls and law enforcement. An example of a supply control strategy is liquor licensing laws restricting the sale of alcohol to persons aged 18 and over.

Harm Reduction (user education, needle programs, pharmacotherapies, etc).
Harm-reduction strategies have been controversial, because they work to reduce the risks of harm, but not necessarily to reduce drug use. For example, introducing low-alcohol beer means that people can still drink beer, but the long-term health risks can be reduced. Another example is providing injecting drug users with access to clean equipment through needle syringe programs. By reducing the risk of blood-borne infections such as hepatitis C and HIV being transferred, the risks are reduced for both the individual and the community as a whole.

Source: Australia Drug Foundation

By far, most attention is already on law enforcement followed by education. The evil Harm Reduction only receives a miserly 3% of the government’s drug budget.

Supply Prevention 56%
Harm Prevention 23%
Treatment 17%
Harm Reduction 3%

So there. A quick lesson from a drug addict blogger who sadly knows more than the imperious author poncing about as some sort of authoritative morals expert.


Related Articles:
Free Drugs Guide Offer To Children
Journalist Should Be Ashamed
Piers Akerman, His Readers, Oxycodone and The Truth
Drug Hysteria - Headlines from News Ltd.

WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA

This is getting monotonous! As I was reading through the Kings Cross Times, I discovered yet another idiotic comment from a WA Liberal Party politician. The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC, member for the South Metropolitan Region has replied to a letter from a concerned citizen about the proposed legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003. Whilst reading the reply, I couldn’t help but wonder if this guy actually knew what he was writing about. Apart from sounding like a media release, I realised that every point he raised was untrue. How could such a thing happen in 2009? Was he fabricating the whole letter or simply so stupid, he didn’t know any better? Either way, it’s another clear example of how so many public officials are not fit to hold office and represent the people.

Reply from WA politician Hon Nick Goiran MLC to a letter re repeal of the Cannabis Control Act 2003:

21 October 2009

Dear Mr X

CANNABIS CONTROL ACT 2OO3

Thank you for your letter regarding Premier Colin Barnett's announcement to introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003.

The State Government recognises that illicit drug use is a significant problem which affects the lives of users, their families, friends and the wider WA community and cannabis-related legislation is sending a clear anti-drugs message to the community.

Research shows that cannabis use can lead to a mass of health and mental health problems including respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia.
Drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society. l have personally seen how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction. Illegal drugs ruin lives, shatter families and can create a downfall on our community foundation. We should seek to protect our fellow West Australians and these initiatives will crackdown on the plague of illicit drugs in our State.

From what you have written, you support a policy of 'Harm Minimisation'- a strategy to ameliorate the adverse consequences of drug use while drug use continues. I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use, a message I do not espouse. Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure.

Accordingly, l strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use and look forward to voting in favour of the proposed legislation.

Yours sincerely

Hon Nick Goiran MLC

Member for the South Metropolitan Region

The letter opens with the standard claim that they are sending a message to the community that drugs are dangerous. Only those who are already anti-drugs ever take notice of an anti-drugs message e.g. parents, anti-drug groups, fellow politicians and moral crusaders. To the rest of us, the message is clear ... more wasted money, more useless dribble and more mindless policies.

Goiran then explains to Mr X that research has shown that cannabis use can lead to a “mass” of health and mental health problems. They include respiratory problems and cancer risk, abnormalities in reproductive functioning and schizophrenia. Not a whole lot of problems compared to other dangerous drugs like alcohol or crack. Where’s the addiction, damage to vital organs, psychosis, overdose and death? The listed problems reek like an extract from a NCPIC brochure or a Daily Telegraph article that exagerate the effects using worst case scenarios. The letter conveniently ignores the fact that most cannabis users are very moderate users and rarely have cannabis health problems.

The list of health and mental health problems:

Respiratory problems: Hasn’t Nick heard of vaporisers or consuming something orally? As for the average cannabis smoker who maybe smokes a few times a week, the intake of smoke is tiny.

Cancer risk: I assume that Nick means Lung cancer? I say that because cannabis is showing that it actual helps prevent some cancers.

A major 2006 study compared the effects of tobacco and Cannabis smoke on the lungs. The outcome of the study showed that even very heavy cannabis smokers "do not appear to be at increased risk of developing lung cancer," while the same study showed a twenty-fold increase in lung cancer risk for tobacco smokers who smoked two or more packs of tobacco cigarettes a day. It is known that Cannabis smoke, like all smoke, contains carcinogens and thus has a probability of triggering lung cancer. THC, unlike nicotine, is thought to "encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."
-Wikipedia

Abnormalities in reproductive functioning:
The effects of cannabis on reproductive functioning are uncertain. The claim that cannabis impairs male and female reproductive functioning in humans has very little support in the scientific world. Although it is wise for pregnant women to abstain from using most drugs, the bulk of scientific evidence indicates that cannabis has very few adverse effects on the developing fetus.

Schizophrenia: Sorry Nick but cannabis doesn’t usually cause schizophrenia for the average user but might bring it on in those who have a family history of mental illness. The police would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users from ever using again to prevent one case of schizophrenia in those who have no links to the illness.

Following on, Goiran explains that “drugs are an insidious threat to the fabric of our society” and claims he has observed for himself “how people are enslaved, threatened and exploited because of drug debts and addiction”. What he leaves out is that the proposed laws will only make matters worse. But annoying things like facts are not a problem for Goiran and he proudly declares that “I strongly support the Premier's announcement and the use of criminal law to deter drug use”. In one sentence, Goiran dismisses years of careful research and precise scientific studies and overrides it with his own Drugs are Bad, mmkay stupidity.

If there is any doubt left that the Hon. Nick Goiran is as thick as Colin Barnett’s forehead, then this statement will remove all doubt:

Furthermore, in my view harm minimisation strategies have been an abject failure
-The Hon. Nick Goiran MLC

It may only be his view but this man is supposed to represent the public. Making ridiculous comments like this is unacceptable and just further proof that Western Australia is packed with Liberal Party dickheads. And I mean dickheads of the highest degree. Harm Minimisation saves thousands of lives and gives hope and some much needed respect to those who have a drug problem. It’s success has been hailed around the world as more and more countries adopt it as official drug policy. I would love to know why it has failed? Stating that “I firmly believe that harm minimisation strategies communicate a message condoning drug use” might help explain Goiran’s logic or lack thereof. Not being able to understand the subtlety between condoning drug use and accepting the reality that people have and always will use drugs regardless of laws, highlights serious incompetence for someone in Goiran’s position. In fact, it’s a disgrace. If Nick Goiran was employed by the private sector, he would promptly be sacked and his reputation shredded. If ever a wrong message was being sent to our kids then this is it - the facts aren’t important for political decisions. The WA Libs have a history of pumping out anti-drug rhetoric which is always void of the truth and evidence. From ‘Dippy’ Donna Faragher to Luke Simpkins, from Christian Porter to the Premier himself, the spin is thick and the bullshit aplenty.

I can understand how some governments might overlook scientific research and evidence but to make contrary claims by lying is abhorrent. Remember British scientist, Prof. David Nutt who was sacked as head of the UK government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) for telling the truth? The furore that followed had many hammering the government for ignoring scientific evidence about drugs and instead using the drug scheduling list for political means. The UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C drug back up to class B citing potency and mental health problems as the main reasons. The problem was, the ACMD had researched these issues and found them to have little effect on the nation and that harsher laws would be no deterrent at all. Does all this sound familiar? Maybe like Colin Barnett repealing the state’s cannabis laws for dubious, political reasons? Watch the clip below and note how many lies are told by Barnett which are then debunked by a medical expert.




How could someone stare into a camera and just blurt out so much crap? Surely they know that any claims can be checked by viewers within minutes? Any normal person would cringe and then apologise for being so arrogant and uninformed but the Barney Rubble look-a-like just marches on like a lobotomised lemming. A comedy writer could have a field day with this - a cross between Yes Minister, The Office, The Hollowmen and The Flintstones.

The days are over where we took for granted what an elected government told us. It ended when modern conservatives like neocons and the rabid right took power in the 1970s to the 1990s. They believe it’s okay to lie to the people if it’s in their best interest and helps achieve the government’s agenda. But those policies based on Game Theory didn’t factor in the internet giving access to so much factual information. Are Barnett and co. so delusional that they still believe the public will accept their views as gospel if they lie? Or are they just luddites that got lucky?

The Kings Cross Times that originally printed the letter from Nick Goiran also mentioned that a mystery female WA Liberal MP and a cohort were rude to retired Seattle police commissioner Dr Norm Stamper, who was visiting Australia for a series of speeches on drug prohibition. An article by Dr Stamper in the Huffington Post wrote about being ambushed by this mystery MP before even walking through the front door for a prearranged meeting. According to Dr Stamper, he was berated and talked down to while the MP and cohort continually interrupted to “educate” him about how dangerous he was to Western Australia. Imagine what Dr Stamper thought when some rabid right-wing redneck was telling him, a retired police commissioner and ex drug cop, about the drug situation and how wrong he is. Hmph! Those crazy WA Libs!

Some final questions: I wonder what Dr Mal Washer, the Liberal MP for Moore, thinks of all this? After all, he is one of the Co-Chairs of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform. I wonder if all the WA Libs think the same way? The whole party can’t be that stupid ... can they? And finally: how are tougher cannabis laws going to reduce the state’s drug problem. Only 3% of cannabis users come in contact with the law and we know that harsher penalties doesn’t deter drug use. Why don’t the WA Libs comprehend this when the rest of the world are wising up?

Related Articles:
Cannabis/Schizophrenia Link 'Minimal' -- UK Study
WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981
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

Drug Users are Part of the Community and Deserve Respect

MEDIA RELEASE
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Drug Users Say:  

We Are Part Of The Community And Deserve To Be Treated With Respect And Dignity

The national peak organisation representing people who use illicit drugs, the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL), is joining with communities of people who use illicit drugs from around the world to celebrate International Drug Users Day on 1 November 2009.

In celebrating this day we are speaking as people who use illicit drugs to tell the world that we are valuable members of the community, who come from all walks of life and are people who care about the world we live in. We are proud of our survival in a climate that criminalises, demonises and stigmatises all people who use illicit drugs as worthless, selfish, criminals.

Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer stated “We are not a small and insignificant group of people; we are your family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues, in short, we are part of your community. We deserve equitable access to health services, civil and human rights and same respect and opportunities afforded all members of Australian society.”

We live with the constant grief of losing loved ones due to overdose and diseases such as HIV and hepatitis. Love ones whose lives could have been saved had we removed the criminalisation of drug use and provided access to an expanded range of drug treatments now available in many countries around the world. As a community we have fought hard for our right to access drug treatments that are accessible, affordable and meet our needs.

On International Drug Users Day 2009 AIVL is calling for an expansion to the range of treatment options available including heroin prescription programs and injectable methadone, buprenorphine and morphine. “The international evidence is indisputable in relation to the efficacy of these programs. Numerous evaluations have now shown that providing injectable pharmacotherapy programs has improved people’s health, their social and living conditions, their ability to participate in study and employment and reduced crime.” Ms Madden added.

AIVL believes one of the most important aspects of these programs is that they save lives. Australian and international studies have shown that people who access drug treatment programs are significantly more protected from dying due to a drug-related overdose than those not in pharmacotherapy treatment. One Australian study has shown that; one in 100 people using heroin on the street die from overdose compared with one overdose death for every 485 people for those on a methadone pharmacotherapy program.

“Australian drug users deserve access to programs that protect their lives and should be given the opportunity to choose from the widest possible evidence-based drug treatment options in order to get the best ‘treatment fit’. Furthermore, we want these choices now, not as a last option when we have hit so-called ‘rock bottom’. Being able to engage in a drug treatment option of our choice, that suits our needs, should not have to come at the price of our lives being in devastation before we are offered or become eligible for these programs” stressed Ms Madden.

Too often heroin prescription programs are talked about only as an option of ‘last resort’. AIVL is concerned that we are thinking about heroin prescription in the wrong way. It should be offered alongside other treatment options for anyone seeking to manage an opioid dependency. “We believe we should have access to the full range of treatment options available, anything less is an infringement upon our human rights and potentially exposes many people to discrimination, criminalisation, disease and death simply because we have refused to heed the now overwhelming evidence supporting such programs” Ms Madden concluded.

Media Contact: Annie Madden, AIVL Executive Officer on ph: (02) 6279 1600 or mobile: 0414 628 136.


Annie Madden
Executive Officer
Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL)

Ph: (02) 6279 1600
Fax: (02) 6279 1610
Email: anniem@aivl.org.au
Website: www.aivl.org.au
Mobile: 0414 628 136

Street Address:
Level 2, Sydney Building
112-116 Alinga Street
Canberra ACT 2601

Postal Address:
GPO Box 1552
Canberra ACT 2601

Syringe Exchange Programs Are Saving Lives

Syringe Exchange Programs (SEPs) have been controversial since they were first officially introduced in the Netherlands in 1984. Since then, the issue of giving out clean syringes to inject illicit drugs has plagued politicians worldwide. They were faced with opposition from vocal moral crusaders, an ignorant public and attacks from other politicians while there was growing scientific evidence that SEPs prevented many deaths. It was a case of losing voters or losing lives. While most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand etc. worried about losing lives to HIV/AIDS, the US worried more about losing votes. As cases of HIV/AIDS and Hep C. rocketed up in the US, early adopters of SEPs, especially Australia had much better success at minimising the spread of blood borne diseases.

Giving out clean syringes to drug users existed long before SEPs was made official. In 1970, the San Francisco State University unofficially gave away clean syringes as a way to deal with yellow jaundice and abscesses from shooting heroin. This practice spread to the San Francisco General Hospital and in the early days of the HIV epidemic, some doctors and nurses would leave unopened packets of syringes in clear view of drug users then leave the room expecting the packets to be gone when they returned. Looking back now, it really hits home how draconian we can be in this so called modern civilisation.

United States

Regardless of this evidence, the use of federal funds for needle-exchange programs was banned in the United States of America in 1988. Most U.S. states criminalize the possession of needles without a prescription, even going so far as to arrest people as they leave private needle-exchange facilities. Nonetheless, every state in the United States has a program that supports needle exchange in some form or the purchase of new needles without a prescription at pharmacies.These programs were introduced during the Clinton Administration but were disbanded following negative public reactions to the initiatives. Covert programs still exist within the United States.
-Wikipedia

Although the evidence has been conclusive for decades from dozens of well established studies, the US remained defiant. At least 7 attempts to introduce federal recognition and funding for SEPs have been over turned by the reigning president of the time. President Bill Clinton promised to change the federal position but his drug czar, William Mcafferey convinced him that allowing SEPs would “send the wrong message” in their fight against drugs. it is estimated that 10,000 lives and 500 million dollars in health care could have been saved during his 8 year presidency if Bill Clinton removed the ban on federal funding.

By 2000, 36% of all AIDS cases and approximately 50% of new HIV infections had occurred among injecting drug users and their partners.

I do not favor needle exchange programs and other so-called harm reduction strategies to combat drug use. I support a comprehensive mix of prevention, education, treatment, law enforcement and supply interdiction to curb drug use and promote a healthy drug free America, not misguided efforts to weaken drug laws and needle exchange programs signal nothing but abdication, that these dangers are here to stay. America needs a president who will aim not just for risk reduction, but for risk elimination that offers people hope and recovery, not a dead end approach that offers despair and addiction.
-President G.W. Bush. Annual meeting of the AIDS foundation of Chicago. 2000

The ban on federal funding remains. In the run up to the 2008 election, Barrack Obama made a key campaign pledge to remove the ban on federal funding for SEPs. In May 2009 after being elected president, the pledge disappeared off the Obama website and when his health budget appeared shortly afterwards, the ban remained, buried deep on page 795.

Australia
It started in 1986 with a group of Sydney users who illegally distributed clean syringes at St. Vincent’s hospital under the watch of Dr. Alex Wodak. Since then, Australia has become an international leader in harm reduction with one of lowest rates of HIV/AIDS infections. Unfortunately though, with over a decade of conservative governments and strong criticism of harm reduction from the media, Australia has started to stagnate, losing it’s once impeccable reputation. While SEPs remain a major part of our health system, more recent Harm Reduction strategies are being ignored or opposed by the federal and state governments. The only major exception is the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross.

In the early years of HIV/AIDS before condoms and clean needles were standard fare, the government took a pragmatic approach and spent $150 million dollars between 1988 and 2000. This prevented intravenous drug users from an estimated 25,000 cases of HIV and 21,000 cases of hepatitis C. A saving for taxpayers of up to $7.7 billion dollars.

Since then, the total lives saved and the amount of reduced costs is staggering. Surprisingly, there are still some groups who oppose SEPs and lobby the government not to increase the number of programs. The most recent controversial proposal is the introduction of SEPs into prisons but in terms of targeting susceptible groups, prisoners have the highest rate of blood borne diseases in our society. This is mostly because of a high number of intravenous drug users in prison who are also sharing hard to get needles. Those opposed to SEPs in prison use the same old reasoning that causes most of the current drug problems we have already. You have probably heard them before e.g. “it’s a prison, not a holiday camp” or “it sends the wrong message” or “we should be getting these people off drugs not encouraging them to use more” or “we should be trying to stop drugs getting into prison not making it easier for them to use drugs”. Of course, these arguments simply ignore the reality of drug use and places selfish ideology before the safety of others.

The issue is this — there are about 20,000 men and women being released every year. Many of them have got significant health problems, with blood-borne disease a major element of that. They are going in and out of the prison system and bringing those diseases to their families and their communities. Making clean needles accessible is one easy, relatively cheap way of dealing with that. It’s called public health.
-Gino Vumbaca. CEO of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Sterile injecting equipment in prisons is a no brainer just as a prison methadone program is. Access to these basic health resources is vital to tackling the spread of blood born disease especially in prison where the problem is most prevalent. Denying these services in prison is simply sentencing injecting drug users to a life of suffering or death. Each day that these programs are opposed, a few more fellow humans are tagged for an early grave.

Needle Program Success
The Age
By Julia Medew
October 2009

TAXI drivers, tradesmen and body builders are among the growing number of people using St Kilda's 24-hour needle and syringe exchange program - the only service that operates all night, every night in Victoria.

The manager of health services for the Salvation Army's Crisis Service, Sue White, said that since the Grey Street program started operating round the clock in late 2007, it had helped an extra 1000 people get clean equipment every month.

Aside from local sex workers, she said, tradesmen were using the after-hours service alongside truck drivers and a small number of taxi drivers.

Body builders who take steroids were also attending.

An evaluation of the 24-hour service by the Salvation Army and Monash University found it had contributed to a 51 per cent rise in the number of needles and syringes being distributed between August 2007 and September 2008. The number returned for safe disposal increased 26 per cent.

Ms White said the service had prevented people from sharing equipment - a practice known to spread viruses including HIV and hepatitis C. It had also exposed people to referrals for counselling, detox programs and other health-care services.

The evaluation found that since the service extended its hours, there had been little change in drug-related crime or complaints to the local council.

Ms White said other needle and syringe exchanges should consider expanding their hours, based on its success.

A Victorian Taxi Directorate spokeswoman said it was not aware of any drivers using drugs. She said it was working with police ''to identify drivers who may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol''.

A spokesman for the Victorian Taxi Association said he had also not heard of drivers using illicit drugs.

''It's very surprising and a bit concerning … It's something we will look at,'' he said.

I had to chuckle at the comments from the various taxi organisations. Both spokespeople claimed they had never, ever heard of a driver that used drugs.They sounded stunned!. Why wouldn’t taxi drivers be drug users? Are taxi drivers exempt from such evils in society? In my time, I have seen a taxi driver score heroin from a street dealer, had dozens of cabs drive me then wait while I score and I even purchased speed from one taxi driver. Over a 20 year period and you would expect it to happen sometime. Their responses appeared more like an instant reaction to protect their organisation than the truth. Regardless of their reasons, it had me smiling for a few minutes.

Miranda Devine Vs. Reality

What is it with Miranda Devine and reality? Is she really that far detached from the real world? Every time the Sydney Morning Herald publishes her ramblings about illicit drugs, the more obvious the answer becomes. Every drug related article by Devine that I have read reeks of ultra conservative ideology and is hellbent on pushing the "War on Drugs" mentality. This is not some concerned citizen nobly defending society from drug crazed junkies but a hardcore zealot using deceit and the media to pursue her ultra right wing views. Most worrying is that she is free to proselytise her flimsy views via a national platform like the Sydney Morning Herald. Considering her conservative, apocryphal articles and the quality of her information, it’s surprising that that her rants are not under the corporate umbrella of News Ltd.


And where does she get her information from? In her latest article, Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free, Devine once again, takes deceit to a whole new level. The assumptions are brain chilling and much of her information is simply wrong. For example, Cabramatta police turning a blind eye to drug dealers? Very few options for addicts apart from Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone? Abstinence is a dirty word in the AOD treatment industry? The biggest advocates for drug prohibition are former addicts? An addict’s last hope is naltrexone implants? The “methadone industry” benefits greatly from a large number of patients? Nearly every point Devine makes is a fantasy dreamt up to support the “drug free world” illusion. This is not worthy of publication in Mad Magazine let alone the Sydney Morning Herald.

Devine argues that Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone is evil and abstinence only programs are unfairly being ignored by a greedy, self serving “methadone industry”. The attack includes her old favourites, Harm Minimisation and the NSW government whilst flying the flag for the "War on Drugs". It’s standard fare for Miranda Devine.

But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW

-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald

So what is the basis for Devine's article? Believe it or not, it’s a few recovering drug addicts who disagree with the mainstream. Three out of hundreds of thousands who have benefited from OST, declare they were not happy being on methadone and buprenorphine. I know first hand that methadone or buprenorphine is not for everyone but that’s not unusual for any medication or treatment. But the facts speak for themselves. Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) is the most successful treatment we have readily available for opiate addiction. That’s not to say that abstinence only treatment doesn’t have a place in recovery but unless an addict is 100% ready to quit, it’s pointless. Devine's solution is naltrexone implants. Whilst implanting naltrexone is fine for some, pushing patients into this treatment has shown to have dire consequences including death. Devine and co. feel that being totally drug free should be the only goal of drug treatment including programs like the Narcotics Anonymous(NA) 12 steps program, drug free detox centres and of course naltrexone implants. But this model of abstinence only treatment has really only been mainstream since prohibition where before that, the actual drug of addiction was prescribed to the addict until they were ready to quit. It seemed to work very well until the conservative, religious loonies got involved. Now many decades on and with a world where abstinence treatments compete heavily for the this lucrative market, addiction rates remain as they were a hundred years ago when they first stared recording these statistics. The big difference is the number of relapsing patients thanks to abstinence only programs.

Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.

-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald

It’s difficult to examine the example addicts in Devine's article without knowing more details. The story of Sam being put on buprenorphine appears inappropriate but ironically, once out of jail he was back on heroin. Both Sam and Rueben have only been clean for less than 8 months which is way too early to examine their success. The real danger comes when their naltrexone implants stop working and they relapse. With no tolerance to opiates, even a tiny dose of heroin will kill them. But that’s not important. What counts to Devine and co. is that these addicts are now clean and whether they relapse and die doesn’t matter.

Methadone

Three grumpy, recovering heroin addicts does not compete with the success of OST. Methadone Maintenance Treatment(MMT) was never meant to be a cure for heroin addiction but a way to stabilise a patient’s life. It removed the insatiable need to feed their addiction every day which often involved crime. It allows time to re access priorities and slide back into society giving addicts the chance to work and function like everyone else. Using methadone as a holding treatment until the patient is ready to start a decline in dose wasn’t the standard practice until the last few decades. This has lead to a popular belief that those who don’t completely stop methadone are not successful. And that’s where Miranda Devine’s article fails once again. To ignorant, moral conservatives like Devine, abstinence should be the only goal and methadone is seen as some sort of excuse that just keeps a patient addicted. She is either unwilling to allow medical facts and logic to overcome her conservative views or she’s just thick. The other option is she doesn’t really care and is simply a dickhead.

Devine uses psychologist Ross Colquhoun to back up her argument against methadone. Colquhoun makes some remarkable statements and assumptions that plainly show how wrong Devine is.

The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever

-Dr. Ross Colquhoun

This is simply a lie but it’s not uncommon for anti-Harm Minimisation zealots to take myths and declare they are facts. It’s only recently that doctors have started to rethink their strategy for some methadone patients. Nearly all patients were weaned off their dose over a period of time but doctors have started to concentrate on keeping some patients stable and maintaining a steady dose. Contrary to Colquhoun’s claim, most MMT patients still have a reducing dose with the goal of abstinence.

Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives

-Dr. Ross Colquhoun

Methadone was never meant to be a short term treatment but with pressure from anti-drug groups and tossers like Colquhoun, the push was on to produce results. For naive governments and abstinence only supporters, success meant addicts being totally clean. There was no room to count rehabilitation whilst on MMT as a success as it only muddied their results. This lead to pushing addicts thorough the system quicker. Being on treatment wasn’t enough, they wanted clean, fully recovered patients regardless of relapse. You probably have heard it before from politicians who call methadone, "liquid handcuffs" or claim addicts are just swapping one addiction for another. A recent announcement from Scotland said that they were considering the removal of MMT and replacing it with abstinence only programs. The reason was of course that too many addicts were still on methadone. Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard have made a point of it, Fred Nile raised it in parliament, John McCain tried to introduce a similar bill in the US and several UK politicians have pushed for it. All of these attempts are based on ignorance and winning popularity. The fact is, OST has helped millions of people worldwide and is accepted by addiction specialists as the best solution currently available.

Naltrexone

I have experienced Rapid Opiate Detoxification (ROD) and naltrexone first hand. Luckily for me, the naltrexone was administered by taking a pill each day because after 3 days, I had a bad reaction and had to stop taking it. If it was an implant, I probably would have taken the same course of action like many others and cut it out myself with a razor blade. The ROD was the worst experience of my life which left me almost comatose for 2 months. So what was the problem? Apart from being on a high dose of methadone, naltrexone didn’t agree with me. Those pushed into naltrexone implants don’t have the easy option to simply stop taking a pill and must request that it be removed surgically. Fat chance of that. The main problem with naltrexone implants is the risk of overdose. If the patient does cut it out or the implant ceases to work, they are left with no tolerance to opiates which means their next hit of heroin might be their last. There are dozens of cases of death from overdose after naltrexone treatment and usually from those who were coerced into receiving the implants. 

What most people don’t know is that naltrexone implants have not been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).  For 10 years, the biggest clinic in WA which is funded by the government, still has to get a special permit to operate because the implants have not been approved yet. The clinic, Fresh Start is using a clause in health legislation that allows experimental treatments for life-threatening conditions. There have been many articles and reports criticising the practice but the faithful continue to praise the treatment as the only way forward for opiate addiction. The push for naltrexone implants comes from several dedicated anti-Harm Minimisation warriors including Drug Free Australia (DFA), Bronwyn Bishop, Dr. Stuart Reece and Dr. George O’Neil. The latter two being owners of addiction treatment centres who specialise in these implants. Reece was once charged with the deaths of 25 patients and was investigated for treating a pregnant addict although naltrexone implants were never cleared for use during pregnancy. Both Reece and O’Neil are opponents of needle exchanges, OST and even promoting condoms for safe sex. They frequently use quotes from the bible and other religious symbolism in their quest for abstinence only treatments and Reece even went as far as saying that “Jesus cures addiction". These 2 doctors are the basis for the promotion of naltrexone implants. Not because they offer some magic formula for curing opiate addiction but because it is an alternative to OST and Harm Minimisation. Naltrexone implants stop the effects of heroin and force the patient into total abstinence which is the key to it’s popularity amongst the religious right, moral crusaders and prohibitionists. Damn the results, the deaths and the relapses. Who cares if someone is not suited to an implant ... it’s not Harm Minimisation!

Zealot

What drives Miranda Devine to repeatedly push myths and misinformation onto the public? What does she have to gain except criticism from those who are more knowledgeable than her? Every time she writes about drug related issues, dozens of people expose the flaws and fallacies in her article which would be enough to force most writers to re-examine their views. It would at least prompt most writers to double check their facts. 

Devine despises Harm Minimisation and believes that drug use is an issue of law and order. She is a self confessed supporter of the "War on Drugs" and will go to great lengths to discredit any opposition.  Devine has no ability to accept modern medicine and scientific research if it steps on her ideology. It feels remarkably like someone who believe in creationism and who will do anything to prove science wrong for their convictions. These are not the traits of an intelligent, rational adult but a fanatic, obsessed by misguided dogma, fighting their own fears. Ignoring facts and evidence are the traits of a zealot - a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals, someone who considers their own views more important than those of experts, someone who believes their own bullshit. Having an opinion is one thing but misleading and deceiving nearly a million readers is bordering on the edge of lunacy. 

Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free

By Miranda Devine

Sydney Morning Herald

May 23, 2009

When it comes to drug prohibition, the biggest advocates are former addicts, if you can find any in NSW, where abstinence is a dirty word and the state requires its heroin users to be sedated on methadone for the rest of their lives. 

Just ask addicts what they thought of the harm minimisation experiments of the 1990s, when police were instructed to turn a blind eye to drug use in Cabramatta, Australia's heroin capital.
"While it's so easily available its always a problem," says Reuben, 28, a former heroin and methadone addict who has been drug-free for four months. In the mid-1990s, he was smoking marijuana every day, when he and his friends started riding the train to Cabramatta to get heroin.
"I avoided it for a little while but it was so good, so pure, so easy to get. Police never told the dealers to back off. A 13, 14, 15-year-old kid doesn't know right from wrong.
"You use it because it's there and because the people around you use it."
Sam, a 30-year-old former heroin addict, is still angry when he talks about Cabramatta. "You couldn't ride on the train without people asking you 50 times [if you wanted to buy heroin]. Why did the government stop police from arresting [dealers]? There were no police whatsoever. It was a safe haven for heroin dealers. It isn't good for us … We need prohibition."
Sam ended up in jail, where he took the opportunity to go cold turkey. He spent three days in a dry-out cell, enduring the nausea, diarrhoea, hot and cold flushes, insomnia, pain and stomach cramps. He spent the rest of his three-year sentence drug-free - or he would have. Three months before he was due to be released he was told that, as a heroin user at risk of relapse, he would have to start taking a highly addictive synthetic opiate, buprenorphine, or "bupe", a methadone substitute, or he would not get parole.
"I didn't want another habit," Sam says. "I kicked the habit when I got locked up. [But] you've got no option." He describes bupe and methadone as "liquid handcuffs". He left jail a buprenorphine addict, and was soon back on heroin.
Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.
The harm minimisation industry philosophy that holds sway in NSW is that once you're an addict, you are always an addict. But, for those who don't want to spend their life as a drug-addicted zombie, there are few options.
One of their last hopes is the psychologist Ross Colquhoun's addiction clinic in Ultimo, the only place in NSW to perform rapid detoxification on addicts using implants of the non-addictive drug naltrexone, which blocks the effects of opiates on the brain for about three months.
This morning two addicts will undergo the rapid detox, sedated and under the supervision of a doctor and two registered nurses. Their physical cravings gone, they will need counselling and further implants but, like thousands before them, their chances are good, Colquhoun says, of freeing themselves from addiction.
But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW. And so Colquhoun's naltrexone clinic has been under heavy fire for 10 years, with 10 complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission - all cleared - withdrawal of a federal grant, and general bad-mouthing, to the point where one staffer says: "We are being treated like a backyard abortion clinic in the 1950s."
Two weeks ago came the latest blow that may prove to be the killer, when the NSW Department of Health's Pharmaceutical Services Branch withdrew permission for the clinic to use a morphine drug (MS Contin) as a "bridge" for detoxing methadone addicts. Because methadone is so addictive and causes such terrible withdrawal problems, addicts must abstain for at least five days before detox. Switching to MC Contin stops cravings and is easier to detox.
Critics regard naltrexone as a tool of "coercive abstinence". They say it causes deaths because, when the implant effect wears off, an addict's previous resistance to heroin is gone and they can overdose.
But what is the alternative?
"The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever," Colquhoun says. "Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives."
The methadone industry is booming. Figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare this week showed the number of people on methadone has almost doubled since 1998, up from 24,600 to 41,300 last year, with the majority of doses dispensed privately. No wonder the methadone industry is defensive.
Colquhoun regards methadone as an instrument of "social control".
"They want to keep you nice and happy and sedated and drugged," says Jodde, who managed to wean herself off a massive 120-milligram daily dose of methadone three years ago.
"I was like a vegetable … The doctors, the police, they're all working to keep you in a shithole.
"Once you're a methadone addict, you're public property. You're a piece of crap; you have no rights. It's degrading. You go to seek help and that's what happens."
Sam and Reuben have overcome their addictions so far with the help of naltrexone. Sam has reunited with his family, and has not taken drugs for eight months.
Reuben is at TAFE studying adult literacy. "I've only just started enjoying being straight. It's a dramatic change from not being able to do anything.
"I feel productive for the first time in my life. I haven't ever really felt that."
You need a good reason to deny Reuben that chance.

Related Articles:

Miranda Devine, Drug Prohibition, Abstinence, the war on drugs and the herding of cats

The Ballad Of Alex And Miranda

A Devine Nutter & That Booklet

Miranda Devine - Bitch Slapped by the Doctor

Are Flat Earth Journalist Intelligent? No ... Just Dangerous