Show Us Your Drug Policy!

Our New Drug Policy

The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) has written to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott with some questions about their alcohol and drugs policies. I thought I might check out their existing drug policies first but was dismayed to find that they didn’t exist. Both parties had a drug policy not too long ago which raises the question, why were they removed? Where is that infamous Liberal Party, "Tough on Drugs" policy that Howard, Pyne, Bishop (really old one), Mirabella, Ley and Abbott etc. were so defensive of? Where is Labor’s carbon copy? I notice The greens have a very clear and concise drug policy, albeit somewhat watered down in an attempt to appear more mainstream. And why is it that The Greens are the only major party to focus on Australia’s official drug policy of Harm Minimisation? 

Letter to Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard

With time running out in the run-up to the 21 August Federal Election, the alcohol and other drugs (AOD) sector is disappointed that YOUR policies on alcohol and other drugs have not been made public. Most importantly, the AOD sector wants to know will AOD services fit within the YOUR Government’s plans for National Primary Health Care Reform?

[…]

The Australian Greens have come forward with their National Health Care Plan and are to be congratulated for opening up the debate which you, as the leader of YOUR Party, must appreciate is an opportunity to take affirmative action to provide answers to our concerns. To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs (AOD) initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services.

ADCA urges you to recognise the critical importance of giving the highest priority to the health and social problems of AOD misuse, and the need for a strong, adequately trained, and funded AOD sector to address the continuing harms this causes. It is of great importance to the organisations and service providers ADCA represents that YOUR policies and commitment to the services and people who work in the AOD sector are made public, and that they address the context and principles that have been identified.

[…]

The announcement of the proposed Australian National Health Reform (NHHN) has the potential for substantial implications for the AOD sector. Treatment for AOD problems includes a range of service types including assessment, opiate substitution, withdrawal and post-withdrawal treatment, residential rehabilitation and drug counselling.

[…]

Acknowledging that the NHHN will reform the structure of health services, the funding models, and the funders, it is understood that the timeline for consideration of AOD treatment services has been scheduled for December 2010. While individuals and disciplines across the diverse AOD service system may hold differing views about the best arrangements for AOD services, there is agreement on the following core principles for treatment:

1. AOD addiction, or dependence, is a chronic medical condition with important social aspects. People with AOD problems often require a wide range of interventions over a long period of time. Strong linkages need to exist between a range of services types for patients to be able to experience good continuity of care and smooth referral processes between treatment types.
2. AOD services need to exist within non-government and primary health care settings.
3. A range of disciplines need to be involved (as mentioned previously), and cover both specialist and generalist practitioners.
4. Treatment must be based on evidence and based on demonstrated quality of treatment.
5. AOD services need to be adequately funded on a transparent funding formula. Historically and presently throughout Australia, salaries in the AOD sector have been below market standards, making it difficult to raise treatment and assistance services to an evidence-based standard.

ADCA, the AOD sector, and particularly undecided voters deserve to know where you and YOUR party stand on the future health and wellbeing of all Australians.

--Letter to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott from The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA) [Full Letter Here]

You can exhale now. Tony Abbott has responded.

Thank you for your recent email to the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MP. As you may be aware, the Prime Minister has called a Federal Election. Unfortunately, from Opposition, we do not have the resources to respond to your email in detail during the campaign period, but your concerns will be brought to Tony’s attention and that of the Coalition Team.

After three years of Labor Government failures, Australians now have a choice. Broken promises, increased cost of living pressures, massive debt, a Budget deficit, waste and mismanagement and new taxes are all placing unnecessary pressures on Australians. Further, Labor have removed a Prime Minister quickly and ruthlessly, ignoring the wishes of Australian voters. But it is the same government with the same problems creating the same mess.

I hope you will get behind Tony in the weeks ahead as he seeks to stand up for Australia and take real action to end the waste, repay the debt, stop the taxes and ease the cost of living pressures on families. If you would like to read more detailed policy information please go to www.liberal.org.au

--Response form the Liberal Party.

Boy, what a let down. One paragraph explaining they are too busy to have a policy and two more paragraphs of scripted Liberal Party spin.

I remember not too long ago that the Libs were all "Tough on Drugs" and even held an enquiry called The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Several party heavyweights told us the Rudd government was losing focus on the drug war and had to toughen up. Even the leader at the time, Malcolm Turnbull admitted to smoking weed but was then quick to point out, it was a mistake as we know now how dangerous pot is. So, where has the “Tough on Drugs" policy gone?

Yes, I've smoked pot. 

[…]

I think now, with what we know about marijuana, I think it is a very serious drug and it is a drug that we should strongly discourage everybody, be they young or old, but obviously particularly young people, from using.

--Malcolm Turnbull

At least the Libs responded to the ADCA letter (sort of). Where was Joolia’s reply? Maybe it’s the long term memory problems that go hand in hand with smoking the killer weed? You see, Joolia is also a self confessed, one time pot smoker. Not to beaten by a Lib namely, Malcolm Turnbull, the following day, Jools said: 

At university, tried it, didn't like it

[…]

I think probably many Australian adults would be able to make the same statement so I don't think it matters one way or the other.

--Julia Gillard

You would think that with so many political leaders (including Tony Abbott) confessing to breaking the law and admitting to drug use, they would be more informed about the drug issue.

On a side note, I what to know what politicians tried something harder. At least several US politicians including President Obama (and G.W. Bush in a round about way) admitted to using cocaine. During the 1970s, 80s and 90s, speed, magic mushrooms and LSD were making the rounds and any self respecting university student was bound to have participated at least once. C’mon guys … where’s the confessions of having a few lines of whiz or brewing up a batch of shrooms?

On Wednesday, The National Press Club presented The Hon Nicola Roxon MP VS The Hon Peter Dutton MP health debate. A major disappointment for those who were waiting for a drug policy announcement or discussion. Instead, we got the usual garble with promises to out do each other and each speaker claiming their party had the better health policy. Oh, there was one question about alcohol.

It’s easy to see why organisations like ADCA are disappointed. They are constantly ignored and made to suffer the consequences of misguided drug policies. And when they get finally get a chance to put some pressure on the major parties, they are just shoved aside for more pressing issues like Mark Latham, the real Julia vs. the old Julia or whether no more Workchoices means no more Workchoices. Below is another media alert from ADCA.

ADCA Media Alert (9 August): Three Weeks On – Where are the Alcohol & other Drugs Policies? – Election 2010.- With three weeks down and only 12 days to Election 2010, the conspicuous absence of major policy announcements on alcohol and other drugs (AOD) issues is disturbing.

“The AOD sector wants and needs more than a few elementary statements from Labor, the Liberals, Greens, and the Independents,” the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA), Mr David Templeman, said today. “It is not enough to read about the National Health Care Plan from the Greens, mental health funding and ‘a new investment to tackle AOD abuse in Indigenous communities’ from Labor, and a passing reference to healthcare in the Liberals campaign launch. 

“These are insufficient to stem concerns that all political parties have relegated the immense damaging impact alcohol and other drugs, both licit and illicit, are having on communities, to the bottom of their policy piles.”

Mr Templeman said that the Opposition missed an ideal opportunity at its launch to address the critical AOD priority for all Australians.

“With media reports suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition will consider his position on plain packaging for cigarettes, does this then mean that the alternative government will adopt the same approach on alcohol and other drugs and not come out publicly with definitive policies,” Mr Templeman said. “ADCA can only hope the schedule debate at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday (11 August) will result in both Labor and the Liberals making substantive statements that alcohol and other drugs issues are front and centre in their respective National Primary Healthcare Reform programs.”

Mr Templeman said that the AOD sector would be watching this debate with interest to see what both the Minister for Health, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, and the Opposition Spokesperson on Health, Mr Peter Dutton MP, plan to deliver if elected to Government.  

“To effectively improve the health and social wellbeing of the community, alcohol and other drugs initiatives and services must be an integral component of health and social services,” Mr Templeman said. “If our two major parties won’t come clean on just where alcohol and other drugs sit in Election 2010, ADCA calls on all media organisations to start questioning what is actually planned for a holistic approach to National Healthcare Reform.” 

UPDATE
The Sex Party have released their drug policy. Three cheers to Fiona Pattern and The Sex Party for their scientific yet pragmatic approach to such an important issue.

ALREADY!!! - Another Lib Makes a Dickhead of Himself

It was only 2 days into 2010 and already another Lib had made a dickhead of themselves. Victorian Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has joined the ranks of other political morons who have lied about or greatly exaggerated the effects of illicit drugs for personal, political gain. Following on from the trend set in SA and WA, Baillieu has declared that he will ban bongs if elected at the next state election.

When professionally made bongs are not available, smokers often resort to making their own from common household items. Most of us have seen the result of a home made bong - that ganja icon made of an orange juice container, a strip of garden hose and some tin foil. Often it is also made with other toxic materials like Blu-Tack, masking tape or glue to seal it around the cone where you light it. Some nasty fumes can come from these products. For example, although no one actually knows all the ingredients in Blu-Tack(trade secret), when lit, it releases quantities of carbon dioxide and monoxide, water vapour, oxides of nitrogen and toxic fumes. Not very healthy at all. I imagine glue and masking tape also have similar toxic fumes when set alight.

To ban bongs, you must effectively ban all drug paraphernalia including other safety products like crack/ice pipes and cocaine kits. These products help stop the spread of killer blood borne diseases like HIV/AIDS and Hep C. Banning drug paraphernalia is a simple way to sentence some people to death or a life of misery. I’m sure Baillieu knows this but as we’ve seen with other selfish, myopic politicians, the quest for votes is more compelling.

I have been criticised as being too harsh on politicians by calling them dickheads and liars but in reality they get off very lightly. They put through laws that effect all of us and some of them may actually cause harm to the public. This puts a lot of responsibility on these people but ultimately it’s their decision to run for office. Most of us understand there is some self promotion required when you’re a politician but when it becomes more important than the issues, a policy lacks any evidence or it is purely for political gain, then we have a problem. Especially when the issue leads to people dying or suffering something as unimaginable as HIV/AIDS. Banning drug paraphernalia will kill people and hurt many families - simple. And the stated reasons given by Baillieu are just wrong. So let me clear this up ... Ted Baillieu is a dickhead. A dangerous, selfish, greedy, lying dickhead.

He(Ted Baillieu) said, research showed cannabis was a gateway drug into more dangerous illicit drugs, with most heroin and cocaine users first experimenting with cannabis
-The Sydney Morning Herald quoting Victorian Opposition Leader, Ted Baillieu

Bullshit. The Gateway Theory has been debunked by every reputable study since 1944 and is considered now just an example of Reefer Madness. The Gateway Theory then called the Stepping Stone Theory was pioneered in 1951 by Harry Anslinger, head of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics who, without a shred of evidence made the assertion that marijuana is a stepping stone to heroin addiction. This completely contradicted his own public and personal views. This has been the basis of US cannabis policy ever since and is still used by anti-drug crusaders. Funnily enough, the original Stepping Stone theory was that spicy Mexican food led to hard drug use(opium/heroin).

The fundamental idea comes from America's puritanical history. It is the idea that pleasure is sinful, and small pleasures lead to cravings for larger pleasures. In this example, those who crave spicy food will inevitably crave larger pleasures, such as opium.
-History of the Marijuana Gateway Myth by Clifford A. Schaffer

10 years later, some states in the US banned marijuana because they believed that opium/heroin led to marijuana addiction. LOL!

BTW, Reefer Madness is a reference to a propaganda movie made by the US government that depicted massive exaggeration and falsehoods about cannabis. The movie was meant to evoke public hysteria and damnation of cannabis use. Most opposition to cannabis back then was fuelled by racism, industry protection and moral panic.

Mr Baillieu said research from the Mental Health Council of Australia had found that cannabis users were three times more likely to develop psychosis
-The Age quoting Victorian Opposition Leader, Ted Baillieu

More Bullshit. The latest and most reputable research tells us that cannabis alone does not cause psychosis without having an existing condition or a family history of mental illness. Cannabis can introduce psychosis-like symptoms that disappear after the effects of cannabis dissipate. Ironically, Bailieu’s assumptions are based on decades of consuming political spin largely from the feral federal Libs under Howard and junk science from anti-drug nutters who the Libs support.

Cannabis is a dangerous drug which causes serious mental and physical damage to many Victorians every year. As long as John Brumby allows bongs to be sold freely at more than 100 outlets across the state, Victoria's young people and families will continue to suffer from the damaging effects of cannabis.
-The Sydney Morning Herald quoting Victorian Opposition Leader, Ted Baillieu

The Victorian government stood their ground, refusing to budge and they deserve some credit for that. As Balillieu said, Victoria is the only state where drug paraphernalia is not banned. The problem for Ted Baillieu is that this makes Victoria the only sensible state when it comes to ensuring proper equipment is available for the safety and health of drug users. Until The Libs comprehend this or at least stop lying, they will be continue to be responsible for many deaths to come and the misery of thousands of Australians.

Baillieu's Election Vow To Ban The Bong
The Age
January 2010

BONGS would be banned in Victoria if the Coalition wins the state election this year.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said the move would send a clear message to young people that cannabis is dangerous and harmful.

He said Victoria was the only state not to restrict the sale of bongs despite cannabis being illegal but widely used by young people.

''As long as John Brumby allows bongs to be sold freely at more than 100 outlets across the state, Victoria's young people and families will continue to suffer from the damaging effects of cannabis,'' Mr Baillieu said.

''Victorians can't trust a government that claims it is tough on drugs yet won't take this important step to reduce drug use.''

Under the Coalition's plan, Consumer Affairs Victoria inspectors would police the ban.

Mr Baillieu said research from the Mental Health Council of Australia had found that cannabis users were three times more likely to develop psychosis.
--

Bongs Stay On Sale In Vic Amid Ban Call
Sydney Morning Herald
By Daniel Fogarty
January 2010

AAP - The Victorian government will continue to allow the sale of marijuana-smoking implements, despite an opposition pledge to ban bongs should they win the next election.

Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said a Coalition government would introduce the ban to reduce the harm caused to families by cannabis.

"Cannabis is a dangerous drug which causes serious mental and physical damage to many Victorians every year," he said on Saturday.

"As long as John Brumby allows bongs to be sold freely at more than 100 outlets across the state, Victoria's young people and families will continue to suffer from the damaging effects of cannabis."

But a spokesman for the government said it would not change its policy on the sale of bongs.

"We have examined this issue in the past but we do not support a ban on bongs and will continue to focus on prevention, education and working closely with police around law enforcement," he said in a statement.

"Victoria is tough on drugs with a focus on prevention, protecting our young people and reducing demand and the uptake of illicit drugs in our community."

The spokesman said the Opposition had no comprehensive drugs policy and continued to tinker around the edge of a serious issue - addressing the symptoms and not the cause.

Mr Baillieu said that under the Coalition plan it would amend the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act to restrict the sale of bongs, with Consumer Affairs Victoria inspectors being responsible for policing the ban.

He said research showed cannabis was a gateway drug into more dangerous illicit drugs, with most heroin and cocaine users first experimenting with cannabis.

"Victorians can't trust a government that claims it is tough on drugs yet won't take this important step to reduce drug use," Mr Baillieu said.

An election is due to be held in Victoria in November.
--

Related Articles:
"Canabis is a Dangerous Drug" according to Aussie Politician
WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA
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 Unwinnable War On Dickheads
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier
Anne Bressington: The Epitome of Stupidity
Libs, Labor ... what's the difference?

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

Sophie Mirabella - Another “Tough on Drugs” Looney Lib

They’re at it again.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Oh dear, those silly Libs. Always harping on about someone being “Soft on Drugs” or how the Howard government was so successful at fighting the drug scourge while the Rudd government is doing nothing.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Yes, I remember the success. Like the heroin epidemic that Howard proudly announced was beaten with help from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). At the time, heroin use did drop significantly in Australia and there was plenty of back patting and victory speeches. Amazingly, Howard’s “Tough on Drugs” policy was also working overseas and countries like Australia who were supplied heroin by Burma had a record drop in heroin use. Simply amazing! Several years later though, AFP head, Mick Kelty dropped a bombshell and explained that Burma and other S.E. Asia crime syndicates had switched to methamphetamines(ice) and ditched their heroin business. Oops. Just to rub it in, it was later revealed that the use of ice had been growing for the previous 5 years and peaked around the time the government announced that methamphetamines were starting to become a problem in Australia. By the time the media and government started screaming “Ice Epidemic”, methamphetamine use had already started to decline. The short story being that whilst the Howard government was busy taking credit for something they didn’t do, ice had slipped in unnoticed ... all on their watch.

Since the Rudd government took over, the “Tough on Drugs” campaign has taken a back seat while they focus on a much bigger problem called alcohol. This is driving the Libs crazy as they had previously defended the massive alcohol industry although it causes much more carnage on Australia than illicit drugs ever will. Sussan Ley, Jamie Briggs, Mathias Cormann, Colin Barnett, Christian Porter, Barry O'Farrell etc. have all had a go at the Rudd government for not being “Tough on Drugs”. Joining this groups of desperates is Sophie Mirabella, Liberal Party Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women & Youth. Although Sophie Mirabella is already well known as a twat, she confirmed it by writing a piece for The Punch last week. In her article, she attacked Rudd and co. for being “Soft on Crime” highlighting how they have neglected to follow up the success of the Howard government and their “Tough on Drugs” policy. Well, here’s the thing Sophie ... “Tough on Drugs” doesn’t work. When you say “Soft on Drugs”, you mean being sensible, rational and following the facts. You mean reconsidering a failed policy that has cost millions of lives around the world. You mean breaking away from the US centric "War on Drugs" that has cursed that country into having the largest rate of drug users on the planet. Like I commented on the The Punch site - “But there’s the catch. If they really believe the propaganda they spin to the public then they are dumb as a hammer but if they are rational thinking adults and know it’s not true, then they are liars. Any guesses?”. My guess is that you know damn well what’s happening but you can’t get your head around addiction being a medical issue. You see drug use as immoral except for that most dangerous of drugs, alcohol. You think we are simply not tough enough on drug users and a worldwide concerted effort will produce a drug free world. Like most nutters from the far right, you accept druggies dying or being wrongly imprisoned as an unfortunate side effect of maintaining public morality. Yes, the quest for a perfect society that gave us Hitler, apartheid, jail for homosexuals, the over throwing of democratically elected governments, the loss of civil rights, a massive prison population, the stolen generation, rampant corruption and of course, the "War on Drugs". In your world Sophie, there’s no room for science or compassion if it interferes with conservative values.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Mirabella’s latest rant in The Punch is straight from a neocon handbook. It’s probably called How To Win Friends And Influence People (Using Fear & Lies). Neocons believe it’s okay to lie to the public if it’s in the best interest of the country and Mirabella wants to determine what that is. Who cares if it ruins lives? Who cares if it doesn’t work? And why would Mirabella criticise the government for wanting the term Harm Reduction included in the UN’s official drug policy? It is after all, part of Harm Minimisation which is Australia’s official drug policy. The reason is simple. The US have a Zero Tolerance policy for drugs and it was them who pressured the UN not to include the term Harm Reduction. As a neocon, Sophie believes the US is the motherland spreading law& order, freedom & democracy, free markets and capitalism, Christianity, family values & moral direction. There’s no place for Harm Minimisation in a US inspired world.

The "War on Drugs" has failed miserably but there are many Australian politicians who still want Australia to adopt more of the US Zero Tolerance policy. Funny enough, we actually do base most of our drug strategies on the US model with a dash of Harm Reduction. The call for tougher drug sentencing is purely political. Why would we want more of the US Zero Tolerance policy when the US has the highest level of drug use per capita in the world? Is this the “success” we want? Do we want 1 in 37 citizens in the criminal system like the US? Do we want special armed forces shooting innocent bystanders in the crossfire with drug gangs? Do we want millions of people unable to get decent jobs or receive government aid just because they once smoked pot? This is the reality of Sophie Mirabella’s suggestions but there’s no room for such inconvenient truths when you are busy spinning the “Tough on Drugs” line.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

On a final note, Sophie’s rant includes a classic anti-drug tactic that is rarely challenged by anyone - the reverse link. Making the connection between illicit drugs and crime is simple enough. You take something that is very popular like drugs and ban them. Huge demand creates extremely inflated prices and since some drugs are highly addictive, users have to regularly resort to crime to pay for them. Because they are banned and with so much money involved, the black market attracts organised crime who run the industry using violence and fear. This is called prohibition. For some reason, there are those who get it mixed up and say that the effect of drugs themselves cause users to delve into crime. Like a group of friends sitting around having a joint when suddenly one of them announces that she is going to become a dealer in illegal firearms. There is a good minute of silence before it sinks in. Under the influence of drugs, others soon declare their intentions for a criminal career as well. A bank robber, a credit card scammer and 2 car thieves. Incredible! But that’s drugs for you.

Tough On Crime Is An Empty Slogan For ALP
The Punch
by Sophie Mirabella
November 2009

The ability of Prime Minister Rudd and his Government to “talk tough” has never been in question. It’s the one thing Labor actually do well.

Remember that first heady year in office when they declared a war on virtually everything – from childhood obesity and whaling, to banker’s salaries, unemployment and even the global financial crisis itself?
Conveniently, the rhetoric has never had to bear resemblance to reality.

Julia Gillard talked tough during her faux stoush with the Unions, while at the same time delivering them unprecedented power and access in the workplace.

Wayne Swan solemnly warned of a “tough budget for tough times” before he delivered one of the biggest spending budgets in our nation’s history.

Kevin Rudd seriously claimed his changes to border security were “tough”, while at the same time creating a situation where the people smugglers are clearly back in business with a record number of illegal boats bobbing in Australian waters.

Heck, the rhetoric can even swing a full 360 degrees to suit the mood – declaring oneself an economic conservative one year, and writing a long treatise on the evils of capitalism the next.

No problem. Whatever suits perceived changes in the tide of public opinion. Whatever gets airplay. Or whatever suits as a distraction from other government failures.

The Prime Minister is currently “spinning” in India, where, just a few weeks back, Julia Gillard spent five days trying to reassure worried Indian families that Australia was a safe place, following violent incidents involving Indian students studying in Australia.

Ms Gillard declared that the Australian Government was tough on crime, adding: “We have zero tolerance towards any violence towards Indian students, any violence at all in our country.”

If only that was the case.

Just this week, in the Annual Report of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Prosecutor in Victoria Jeremy Rapke QC, accused the State’s judges of lenient sentencing, particularly in drug cases. In so many cases, these Judges have been appointed by Ms Gillard’s Labor colleagues.

Rapke rightly pointed out that the penalties imposed by Courts in drug cases continue to be inadequate having regard to the insidious effect drugs have on society and said that sentences should reflect “the huge public disquiet about the prevalence of drugs”.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.

When it comes to being “tough on crime”, Labor’s own policy platform also betrays them, with Chapter 7 declaring “Labor will promote the principles of restorative justice as a just and effective way to be tough on crime.”

Restorative justice? What exactly is that? A core principle in restorative justice is to “balance offender needs, victim needs and the needs of the community as well” (Bazemore and Umbreict 1995).

Note the “offenders needs” are pretty high up on that list. And that’s the sticking point.

At its best, restorative justice gives victims of crime a voice. That’s a good thing. For first offences and petty crimes it is a method of dispute resolution that can be effective if both parties enter into the process with good will.

But more and more often the principle is being applied to serious criminal behaviour.

For judges who philosophically support restorative justice that often means keeping an offender out of jail wherever possible…the theory being that they are unable to “make amends” if confined in prison.

This is an approach pretty much at odds with the “do the crime, do the time” deterrent to criminal behaviour which has long underpinned the system and reflects the sentiment of most of the Australian community.

But leniency and the philosophical belief that “offender needs” must be considered in sentencing mean we continue to see many cases where the time simply does not fit the crime. Nor does it reflect community standards and expectations.

Many Judges, like the Labor Party itself, see the principles of restorative justice as the most “just and effective” approach. That’s certainly debatable – and I don’t have the space in this column to go into all the pros and cons. But one thing restorative justice couldn’t be described as is “tough”.

So how can Labor claim to be tough on crime when their party platform says the opposite? Moreover, and perhaps more significantly given our proud history of judicial independence, Labor are appointing more and more judges who conveniently share Labor’s “go soft” beliefs.

The Victorian State Attorney General Rob Hulls is a case in point. His appointments now make up half the State’s judiciary – among them two “Lawyers for Labor”, a former Labor candidate, and four senior officials from the left-leaning “Liberty Victoria”, along with many other “activist” Judges.

Without commenting on their individual qualifications, I do question whether their collective views are representative of mainstream values. I wonder if the balance is skewed.

As a Barrister myself, I believe it’s important for the judiciary to maintain the confidence of the public by broadly reflecting the community’s concept of “justice”.

As outlined earlier, the Senior public prosecutor in Victoria also seems to think this is important.

As evidenced in some of his appointments, the Labor State Attorney General clearly does not.

Meanwhile, half a world away, our tough talking Labor Prime Minister continues to declare his Government is “tough on crime”.

Plenty of feel-good rhetoric, but reality will inevitably bite.

For some local insight into Sophie Mirabella, check out Ray Dixon’s Alpine Opinion.


Related Articles:
Sophie Mirabella, tough on crime, the war on drugs, blather about liberal softies, and a black dull Friday the 13th indee - Loon Pond
The Liberal Party on Drugs
Jamie Briggs - The MP Who Drank the Kool Aid with Lolly Water
Liberal Party Can't Shake Off Howard's Australia
The Unwinnable War On Dickheads

Jamie Briggs - The MP Who Drank the Kool Aid with Lolly Water

Jamie Briggs MP holds the federal seat of Mayo in SA and is a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committees on Health and Ageing. He is also an anti-drug warrior who recently became a contributor to the news/opinion web based forum, The Punch. His latest article at The Punch raises the issue of drug policy priorities where he criticises the Labor government for over looking illicit drugs in favour of binge drinking especially in regards to the alcopops tax. Briggs has previously voiced his concerns about the government’s focus away from illicit drugs with an article in the CourierMail. And this time, he goes even further. The problem is the further he goes, the more he delves into myths, propaganda and lies. It’s hard to tell if he is being sincere in his beliefs or whether he is just spinning a political yarn to shore up ignorant voters. If he does indeed know the facts, then he is deceitful and a liar but if he actually believes his own bullshit, then he is thick as a brick. Either way, it is a worry that an adult, in a position of trust can write such silly articles. Not surprisingly, his article was ridiculed by readers who pointed out the many holes in his argument. The use of urban myths and the usual anti-drug rhetoric made for some dull reading and was not worthy of any serious consideration. The logic was flawed and the assumptions were farcical. He even highlighted the failings of his own solution without knowing it, citing the side effects of prohibition as a factor that needed ... more prohibition. This is standard stuff for anti-drug warriors who fill articles with sound-bite like statements, fear mongering and visions of approaching doom. Since most evidence and research slices their views at the knees they are forced to use emotional hooks, play on the ignorance of the audience and use cherry picked data. The Libs know very well that appearing “tough on drugs” is a vote winner. Being tough on alcohol is not. The Rudd government deserves some praise for focusing on the most serious drug problem we have (alcohol) and wanting a long term strategy. The aim of changing our drinking culture is a brave move considering Australia’s love affair with alcohol and whether it’s working or not is debatable. It might just be too early to tell and will need many more years of smart but controversial policies and a changing attitude from the public. The alcopops strategy is only one small part of an overall plan to implement real and lasting change. It’s also fully endorsed by the leading experts on alcohol and drug abuse and not surprisingly abhorred by The Australian Hotels Association. Most importantly, it’s targeting one of the most dangerous and socially damaging drugs in the world. No amount of hollow rhetoric from the Libs can ever change this fact and to claim that illicit drugs cause more problems is simply disingenuous. I love exposing those like Briggs who go to so much trouble to deceive us. They really deserve it. It’s not just the embarrassment of them looking foolish that drives me, it’s the massive carnage they cause in real life. The insatiable quest of prohibitionist and zealots to push Zero Tolerance laws on the world has cost millions of lives and untold suffering. There are so many families that have been devastated because of a loved one who died from unregulated street drugs or was jailed trying to finance their addiction. There are also the addicts who don’t respond to the available treatments and end up being patients of the prison system. The innocent bystanders of street violence between drug gangs and those affected by corrupt police, lured to the easy money paid by drug dealers. And the ordinary, everyday citizen who is arrested for recreational drug use and cop a conviction beside their name forever. The thousands who have HIV/AIDS or Hep C because some countries do not have needle exchanges. The countless dead from countries like Mexico or Columbia, caught up in the military efforts to stop feeding the incredible hunger of US drug consumers. Every where you turn there are casualties from the "War on Drugs". People like Briggs fuel this carnage and care little about the victims, if at all. Their selfish agenda is always under the guise of fighting the drug scourge and doing what’s best for us. But anyone with an average intelligence who felt so strongly about the issue would have to do at least some research ... and in the process discover the truth. You would think so, wouldn’t you? Now to the fun stuff. Briggs asks if binge drinking is the number one health challenge? His answer is an arrogant, “I think not”. He claims that illicit drugs is the “most significant and dangerous health issue facing young Australians”. This is simply wrong. Alcohol causes 5-10 times the problems of all illicit drugs combined including death. 

Is this an indication of what to expect from Briggs' article? Yep, but there's more ... plenty more.

Using an example of where the “tough on drugs” strategy failed as a reason to be tough on drugs is priceless. Saying, “drugs are cheaper and more accessible than at any time in our history” must surely ring a bell in Brigg’s head. After many decades of prohibition and nearly 40 years of the "War on Drugs", illicit drugs should be priced out of reach for most people and extremely difficult to get. Ironically Briggs points out this failure although the Libs drug policy, which he strongly supports is to dish out even more of the same.

In times past the cost of serious drug consumption was largely prohibitive and underground, but those days are no long gone -Jamie Briggs MP. source: his arse

So hippies in the 60s and 70s didn’t smoke pot? Clubs in the 1980s and 1990s weren’t full of people taking speed and later ecstasy? Parties from the 1970s to 2000 didn’t have the mandatory smell of ganja in the air? LSD or magic mushrooms weren’t tried by young men before now. Having a few pipes before you went out wasn’t standard fare for millions of people over the last 30 years? Where the hell did Briggs get this from? I assume he pulled it out from his arse.

The same survey into ecstasy use showed that 69% of people used ecstasy at nightclubs. Next time you see the queues forming outside nightclubs, remember that statistically more than two out of three patrons who are using ecstasy take it in nightclubs. -Jamie Briggs MP

The media is giving Jamie Briggs some valuable tips to add to his bag of political trickery. A typical News.com.au reader might breeze through this article and come out thinking that 69% of ravers and nightclubbers are under the influence of ecstasy. The sneaky use of statistics in an ambiguous, misleading statement is a classic example of the media and politics working together giving the article some shock value whilst pushing the agenda of the politician.

The availability of such dangerous substances at cheap prices not only risks the health of young Australians but causes violence, assault (in many cases sexual), increased mental illness and dangerous behaviour such as driving under the influence. -Jamie Briggs MP

You are forgiven if you thought the above comment was about alcohol. About 3,100 people die each year from excessive alcohol consumption and about 72,000 people are hospitalised. 80% of night time assaults and half of all reported domestic(including sexual) violence is because of alcohol. Every year, serious assaults resulting from alcohol contributes more than 8,600 hospital admissions and police receive another 62,500 reports of alcohol related assaults. And a third of all road deaths are due to alcohol. Just to top it off, alcohol is responsible for more deaths of young people under 35 than any illicit drug. Is Briggs really being honest by claiming alcohol abuse is less important than illicit drugs? Risky drinking increased from 8.2% in 1995 to 10.3% in 2007 but drug use has actually declined over the last few years.

Alcohol misuse is a significant problem, both socially and economically, to the Australian community. The community generally perceives illicit drugs to be a greater problem because there is always more media attention on drug use, especially heroin, cannabis and ecstasy. In reality, alcohol is ranked second to tobacco as the most preventable cause of health-related harms and death. -Victorian Government Website

You’re getting the picture here. Almost everything Briggs says is exaggerated, a myth or simply wrong. The rhetoric is thick and the standard predictions of doom are everywhere.

Long term abuse of these drugs has significant mental health impacts creating a potential ‘lost generation’ of young Australians due to drug use -Jamie Briggs MP

Every future generation is going to be the “lost generation” according to anti-drug warriors. Funny enough, my generation was doomed once and so was the generation before mine ... and after mine. Of course, there is no actual evidence to prove this except the fear generated by people like Briggs. And there lies the problem ... evidence versus fear mongering. Spreading fear and lies requires no proof and emotional clichés need no explanation.

Talk to any cop on the beat that has to deal with the outcomes of illicit drug use and they will tell you straight just how much trouble this scourge is causing. -Jamie Briggs MP

I bet many cops would say alcohol is the scourge more so than drugs.

We're at the point where we're saying thank God 80 per cent of them are using an illegal drug rather than alcohol, even though in 10 years they'll be suffering manic depressive disorders [...] But we just couldn't deal with that many people affected by alcohol -Queensland Police Officer. News.com.au - Ecstasy helps us deal with drunks, say cops

The police are qualified to give their opinion on the effects of alcohol versus ecstasy on the streets because that’s their job. However, they are not qualified to make medical assessments about the potential harms of MDMA without scientific data. Either is Jamie Briggs as he has obviously not researched the issue properly if at all.

The effects on the health of the consumer are substantial in the short term. While designed to give a ‘buzz’ for a number of hours what they can do to the body is horrific. An overdose can result in psychosis, vomiting, convulsions, kidney failure, heart attack, stroke and in many cases death. -Jamie Briggs MP

If Briggs had done his research, he might never had made the above statement. Then again, facts have not stopped him before. Most small doses of any drug causes very little impact on the body. For example, the sinister drug, heroin is basically non toxic and apart from mild constipation and a slow down of the respiratory system, does very little or no damage to the body. Even toxic drugs like amphetamines will not usually cause major problems in small quantities. Abusing a substance is different though and long term use of any drug will normally cause medical issues. Briggs’ vision of demon like substances is simply drug hysteria and using worse case scenarios like an overdose can be applied to nearly all ingestible substances including Aspirin, paracetamol, alcohol, vitamins or coffee.

Add to that the vicious bashings, sexual assaults and break-ins that occur due to illicit drug use and you start to see the community wide impact of these substances. [...] This is not to underplay the dangers of binge drinking. It is a real problem for young Australians and should be addressed. But it should be addressed seriously and not under the guise of a tax grab. Binge drinking should be addressed but not at the expense of the more challenging issue of illicit drug taking by young Australians [...] It is not good enough for us to say ‘oh well young people will always experiment’. We can and should do more to crack down on this great challenge facing young Australians. A tax on lolly water doesn’t do that. -Jamie Briggs MP

And there it is ... one of the major contributions to teenage binge drinking is nothing more than “lolly water”. Again, the Libs give a free pass to alcohol while trying to drive up the public fear of illicit drugs. The drug issue is very important and needs a solid, evidence based strategy not the half-arsed, “feels good” approach of Jamie Briggs and the Libs. And definitely not by lying and deceit. Is this really acceptable from a member of parliament? But what is this article really about? As you can see, there is no scientific basis or factual foundations. It contains mostly biased opinions, personal views and thick political rhetoric at the core. And it glosses over the damage from the main culprit in substance abuse, alcohol. It feels more like political posturing over the proposed alcopops tax rather than a genuine concern about misguided drug policy. Judging from the comments when the article was first published, most readers seem to agree. Unfortunately for Jamie Briggs, his article has probably had the opposite effect to what he intended. Instead of making himself look “tough on drugs” and showing up the alcopops tax as a revenue grab, he has just shown once again, how out of touch the Liberal Party really is. The real worry for Jamie Briggs should be in 10-20 years time when he has to explain to his children and grandchildren how he got it so wrong when there was so much evidence and research contradicting his position.

Too Giggly On Alcopops To Tackle Hard Drugs by Jamie Briggs The Punch June 2009 Australia has the highest rate of ecstasy use in the world. Frightening isn’t it? So what’s being done about it? Like many other policy issues, the PM declared war on drugs but it is more a phoney war than a real one. Hey guys, wanna buy some alcopops? Since being elected the Government has failed to take any significant action on this major health and criminal problem. Instead General Rudd and his loyal lieutenants have sent the troops into the goldmine by introducing a new tax on pre-mixed lolly water rather than sending them to the front line and fighting the real war on illicit drugs. With my best Kevin Rudd impersonation, I will ask myself a question, ‘is addressing the problem of binge drinking in our young people important? Absolutely. But is it the number one health challenge? I think not’. The Rudd Government has taken its eyes of the most significant and dangerous health issue facing young Australians, illicit drugs. Instead it has taken the easy route and pursued a tax grab dressed up as a health policy. There is little doubt our young people face challenges with illicit drugs like never before. This is not only a health issue; it has devastating effects on Australians, families and communities. Drugs are cheaper and more accessible than at any time in our history. Ecstasy tablets can be bought for as little as $15, five years ago the going price was $55. This isn’t based on third-hand rumour, official government reports released last year confirm this. The Courier Mail found nightclub patrons can buy potentially lethal tablets for little more than a couple of beers. In times past the cost of serious drug consumption was largely prohibitive and underground, but those days are no long gone. Drugs are now mainstream in nightclubs and pubs, not just at rave parties and festivals. The same survey into ecstasy use showed that 69% of people used ecstasy at nightclubs. Next time you see the queues forming outside nightclubs, remember that statistically more than two out of three patrons who are using ecstasy take it in nightclubs. So not only are young people faced with peer group pressure, they are also faced with economic pressures, making the decision to dabble so much more attractive. The availability of such dangerous substances at cheap prices not only risks the health of young Australians but causes violence, assault (in many cases sexual), increased mental illness and dangerous behaviour such as driving under the influence. During the recent Easter road blitz the South Australian police found 1.49% of drivers checked, tested positive to illicit drugs. The fledgling testing system only identifies cannabis, methylamphetamine (speed, ice or crystal meth) and ecstasy. There is no safe level of taking these drugs and their effects are frightening. You do not know what is in them, nor where they are made. There is no standard for production. They are often produced in the back sheds of suburbia for criminal syndicates with little care for the outcome to the end user. There is no post sale service for this product. The effects on the health of the consumer are substantial in the short term. While designed to give a ‘buzz’ for a number of hours what they can do to the body is horrific. An overdose can result in psychosis, vomiting, convulsions, kidney failure, heart attack, stroke and in many cases death. Long term abuse of these drugs has significant mental health impacts creating a potential ‘lost generation’ of young Australians due to drug use. Add to that the vicious bashings, sexual assaults and break-ins that occur due to illicit drug use and you start to see the community wide impact of these substances. Talk to any cop on the beat that has to deal with the outcomes of illicit drug use and they will tell you straight just how much trouble this scourge is causing. The total long term damage to Australian families is unknown and unmeasurable. This is not to underplay the dangers of binge drinking. It is a real problem for young Australians and should be addressed. But it should be addressed seriously and not under the guise of a tax grab. Binge drinking should be addressed but not at the expense of the more challenging issue of illicit drug taking by young Australians. Addressing this problem takes a serious commitment and resources with a mixture of education, law enforcement activities and health responses. We need more police on the beat to target the criminals infiltrating our bars and clubs peddling their human misery. We need an increased emphasis to find those responsible for producing and distributing these drugs onto the streets. We need programmes and interventions to help rebuild the lives of those who are caught up by addiction and finally we need better education programmes for our youngsters. It is not good enough for us to say ‘oh well young people will always experiment’. We can and should do more to crack down on this great challenge facing young Australians. A tax on lolly water doesn’t do that.

The Liberal Party on Drugs

Early this week, the Sunday Times in WA asked Attorney General Christian Porter and his opposition counterpart, John Quigley a series of questions on law and order. The first question was whether WA cannabis laws need to be changed and why. Attorney General Christian Porter gave this disturbing answer:

It remains a top priority of the Liberal National Government to repeal Labor's soft-on-cannabis legislation. This government will not tolerate laws which sanction the use of illicit drugs, particularly drugs that have been shown to cause severe mental health issues.
-WA Attorney General Christian Porter(PerthNow)

With the current cannabis laws in WA achieving their aims including a continuation of decreased drug use, it seems a little weird that the government would want to change them. But the phrase, “soft-on-cannabis”, exposes what’s really behind the government’s push for harsher cannabis laws ... ideology. This has opened up the WA government for legitimate criticism that they are ignoring the evidence before them and pursuing an outdated and flawed strategy based on nothing but pure fantasy. And why it “remains a top priority” must surely be a worry with so much else going on at the moment. Last week, Federal Member for Mayo and former John Howard advisor, Jamie Briggs also made some remarkable comments concerning illicit drugs:

Drugs are the No. 1 risk young people face and the Federal Government's focus on binge drinking means it is missing the problem
-Jamie Briggs - Federal Member for Mayo (Courier-Mail)

The Liberals are still having a hard time getting over the fact that alcohol causes many more problems than all illicit drugs combined. The mindset that all drugs are evil and alcohol is just part of society is firmly intrenched in politics as it is a clear vote winner. The Rudd government needs some kudos for targeting alcohol especially for their efforts to change the drinking culture in Australia. The government has wisely focussed on a long term strategy which might take 10-20 years to take effect. It’s certainly not a shrewd political move or a vote winner and has become an easy target for the opposition who prefer the more immediate policy of appearing to be “tough on drugs”. And here lies the problem. Focussing on a failed drug policy which has never worked for any government of any country, is bound to fail again. The definition of stupidity is often cited as repeating the same old strategies over and over but expecting a different result. Sound familiar? The Rudd government isn’t much better on drug policy from what we have seen but at least they are focussing on the more serious problem of alcohol. 

Christian Porter and Jamie Briggs’ are not alone though and their inane comments about drugs are only two of many made by the Libs over the last year. Remember a newly appointed opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull coyly admitting to smoking pot whilst attending university? Remember the cheeky schoolboy grin and matter-of-fact explanation that quickly evolved into a lecture, damning those who follow in his footsteps? Did Malcolm’s sensibility suddenly become overrun with hard line, Liberal Party ideology? Did he forget for a moment that under his own parties’ “Tough on Drugs” polices, he would have never made it to where he is if he was caught smoking that bong? Who knows? I have looked back over the last year or so and discovered some many challenges from the Libs to the government about who is “toughest on drugs”. I must say that the complete avoidance of investigating a sensible, evidence based drug policy is startling. The Greens and what’s left of the Democrats have much more rational drug policies but are often damned by the major parties as being loopy. It’s a sad day for society when intelligent, well thought out policies backed up with empirical evidence are considered radical whilst maintaining a useless and unsuccessful policy. I have compiled from the last 12 months some classic Liberal Party nonsense dressed up as their “Tough on Drugs” strategy. Keep in mind that these people are supposed to be adults in a position of power and responsibility who are meant to represent us. It is also worth noting that there is ample information and research debunking most of their drug policies and is readily available on the internet. 

NOTE: Some items are extracts and some articles have been edited for the sake of readability. For the full articles, click on the links provided. Items of special interest are coloured red.

JAMIE BRIGGS MP - FEDERAL MEMBER FOR MAYO

Booze Focus Misses Top Risk Of Drugs, Says Jamie Briggs 

By Emma Chalmers (Courier-Mail)

April 2009

DRUGS are the No. 1 risk young people face and the Federal Government's focus on binge drinking means it is missing the problem, a Liberal MP and former adviser to John Howard has warned. South Australian MP Jamie Briggs yesterday said The Courier-Mail's recent series on the drugs scourge exposed how cheap and available illicit drugs were to young people. "What (The Courier-Mail's) series of reports showed is the people walking into clubs can buy for $25 something which is mind-altering," he said. "You don't know where it's made, there's no standards for it and in many instances it's very dangerous." Mr Briggs, who replaced former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer in the seat of Mayo, said that while the Rudd Government was focused on binge drinking and the alcopops tax, it was missing a bigger issue. "If you're serious about addressing issues which are relevant to young people then ecstasy and party drugs have to be part of that," he said. The Rudd Government on Wednesday said it would try again to impose a 70 per cent tax increase on pre-mixed alcoholic drinks popular with young people after its last attempt sank in the Senate by just one vote. Mr Briggs said the Government should widen its alcohol education program - which it will fund with some of the revenue from the tax hike - to include information about all risks relevant to young people, especially drugs. He also called for more police resources to be devoted to the problem.

Excise Tariff Amendment And Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No 1) Bill 2009 

Jamie Briggs MP: Speech to the House

February 2009 

Minister, I never would have undertaken any activities and broken the law—this was binge drinking after 18! It is not a new problem. Binge drinking is a very serious issue and it is a major concern, particularly for those of us who have young children, going forward. We need to educate our children on how to deal properly with alcohol use. It is also not the only problem for young people in society today. We have seen in recent times the problem with illicit drugs, particularly ecstasy at some of these dance and rave parties that have occurred or even at festivals sponsored by a very well-known Australian funded broadcaster. It is not the only issue that haunts young people and that is a challenge to young people. In fact, I would contend it is not the major issue which challenges young people. The truth is that the majority of people in our society use alcohol properly. They do not drink to excess and they do not become a statistic of violence or some of the other problems that occur with overindulging in alcohol. The other truth is that the alcohol industry is a major employer in Australia. Whether it be through the wine industry in my electorate of Mayo in the state of South Australia or through the distilled industries, it is a major employer. So those on the other side should be careful not to take too much of a wowser approach to alcohol, because we are dealing with people’s jobs and people’s lives. What we on this side of the House wanted to see when this was announced was a genuine attempt at addressing a serious issue—not just the issue of binge drinking but the multiple issues that affect young people as they grow into adults and go through the pressures of becoming a young adult. Of course, many of them do overindulge in alcohol. But, as I said earlier, many of them also have issues with illicit drugs, which cause a great deal of harm to many young people in our community. Unlike alcohol, which you can use in a measured way—and most do—illicit drugs of course you cannot. So many of our young people get caught in the cycle of trying different illicit drugs, and it all too often damages their lives. It seems to me that if we were serious about addressing this binge drinking issue, we would also be looking at that as one of the other challenges for young people moving into adulthood. Of course, illicit drugs have to be a major part of that strategy. It is disappointing to us to see that the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars on a preventative health campaign turned into simply $50 million designed to run some ads, as it appears to have done.

The myth that relaxing with one or two drinks is vastly different to drug use, again rears it’s ugly head. Those like Briggs push the image of drugged out, crazy eyed zombies or junkies slumped in an alley with a syringe dangling out of their arm as the guaranteed result of any drug use. The idea that someone can smoke just a little pot to relax or take just one ecstasy tablet for a night of fun is inconceivable to the pro alcohol / anti-drug brigade. Of course, the "use to excess" drug myth was debunked in the 1970s but incredible still remains a valid argument for seasoned liars. The fact is, a small amount of alcohol like “relaxing with one or two drinks” affects the brain and causes a reaction like taking any sort of mind altering drug.

BARRY O'FARRELL MP - NSW STATE LIBERAL LEADER

Call For Anti-Drug Campaign, Ban On Term ‘Recreational Drugs’s

By Barry O'Farrell MP (Media Release)
April 2009

Crime statistics revealing significant increases in drug offences and drug use across NSW highlighted the urgent need for a high profile campaign to alert the community to the dangers of illegal drugs. These alarming statistics require an urgent and strong response from the State Government. They require a high profile, strong public education campaign that warns people about the dangers of illegal drugs. It should also seek to equip parents with information on how to identify signs their children are using illegal drugs and where to go for help. Official federal figures reveal that NSW spends less money on drug prevention than any other State or territory. We should also seek to banish the term ‘recreational drugs’ from the vocabulary of both the community and the media. We’re talking about harmful and dangerous drugs. Use of the term ‘recreational drugs’ sends a far different message about them. We need to warn young people about the dangers of drugs – we haven’t had such a campaign since the drugs summit ten years ago. Current State policy is failing to tackle the scourge of illegal drugs in our community. NSW needs greater investment in a comprehensive, public program aimed at preventing use of illegal drugs like cocaine and ecstasy. These latest crime figures demonstrate that use of illegal drugs is a growth industry in NSW. They suggest we have taken our eye off the ball. We must use their release to better educate families about the dangers of illegal drug use.

Campbell Drops The Ball On Drug Testing For Rail Workers: A Positive Test Every Five Days 

By Barry O'Farrell MP (Media Release) 

February 2009 

Transport Minister David Campbell needs to step up the random drug testing of rail workers after the latest figures reveal a decline in the number of tests, but a rise in the number of positive results. As Seven News reported this evening, a rail worker tests positive for drugs every five days. 

Year            Tests    Positive 

2004/05        4,498    47 

2005/06        8,744    74 

2006/07        4,017    51 

2007/08        5,136    71 

Passenger safety is put at risk if a train driver or guard is affected by drugs. It makes no sense to be cutting the number of random drug tests if the positive test results continue to increase. The minority of rail workers who abuse drugs need to be weeded out and the public needs to be assured that strong action is being taken. They need to know that repeat offenders lose their jobs. Rail commuters already face enough transport stress without having to worry about whether their train driver or guard is affected by drugs. NSW Police don’t cut back on the number of random alcohol tests they carry out. CityRail shouldn’t be cutting back on their drug tests. David Campbell needs to get serious about tackling this dangerous behaviour on the rail network.

See a problem here? Tests haven’t declined, they have increased. That’s only part of the issue though. Most illicit drugs stay in your system much longer than alcohol but have a diminished effect on your performance after 12-24 hours. Cannabis can linger in your blood for 30 days but any real effect from the THC disappears after about 4-5 hours. Other drugs can stay in your blood for 48 hours to weeks with any effects disappearing after 12-24 hours or so. I agree that drug use at certain jobs is extremely dangerous but being picked up a week after you took drugs is a problem that needs some attention.

MIKE GALLACHER MLC - NSW SHADOW POLICE MINISTER

Crime Rises Tied To Economic Conditions: Labor Unprepared 

By Mike Gallacher MLC (Media Release)

April 2009 

Recorded crime statistics released by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research today reveal increases in crime rates tied to economic conditions, the affects of which the NSW State Labor Government are ill prepared for. [...] Of equal concern are the dramatic increases in drug possession. While much of this can be put down to increased enforcement at drug use hotspots; it is obvious the anti-drug message is not getting through. The NSW State Labor Government needs to get serious about organised crime, and about cutting the supply of drugs off at the source. Sniffer dogs and overt enforcement of drug laws send a clear message to the wider public that drug use is a crime; but the decrease in narcotics use over the last decade has shown us habitual drug users will not stop until the drug supply is cut off at the source.

For an aspiring police minister, Mike Gallacher is extremely naive. That’s if he actually believes in what he is saying of course. Berating the government for not cutting off the drug supply at it’s source is worth a giggle or two considering the Mexican army can’t even do it in their country. What’s your solution Mike? “Sniffer dogs and overt enforcement of drug laws sending a message”? [more giggles] Yes Mike, you’re a joke.

JILLIAN SKINNER - NSW SHADOW MINISTER FOR HEALTH

Victory For Families And Opposition On Drugs Pamphlet, But Review Must Involve Frontline Educators 

By Jillian Skinner (Media Release)

June 2008 

The pulping of a Iemma Government pamphlet giving school children the green light to take illegal drugs is a victory for families and the State Opposition. The pulping of this offensive document was the only option Health Minister Reba Meagher could take. The decision of the Health Minister’s department to produce this document in the first place casts fresh doubts about Reba Meagher’s judgement. If further demonstrates how incompetent the Health Minister is. It also confirms this pamphlet was distributed beyond the small group suggested by various Iemma Government spokespeople. Once again, the Iemma Government has been caught out trying to spin its way out of trouble one minute, and then dithering and trying to cover its tracks the next. Reba Meagher needs to confirm how many of these pamphlets were produced, and how much it cost taxpayers? The review of all drug education material handed out in our schools, announced today, is long overdue. For too long this kind of mixed message has been coming out of the Iemma Government, it has to stop. To be effective this review must involve all people involved in drug education. If this is just another statement to get the media and concerned families off Reba Meagher’s back, it’s going to backfire – we will not rest until this review is made public and all relevant parties are allowed to have their say. Drug education must carry the simple message that it is never safe to take illegal drugs. Only the incompetence of the Iemma Government could stuff up giving this vitally important message to school children.

“The pulping of this offensive document was the only option” 

So telling the truth is offensive? Saving lives is offensive? Facing reality is offensive? When will the reality of drug use finally sink in their cold, hard, shit encased brains? Are they really that stupid and if so, what are they doing representing us? Even scarier is that they really do know the reality but are just scumbag liars scurrying for votes. “Drug education must carry the simple message that it is never safe to take illegal drugs” - Again, are they really that stupid? Doesn’t Jillian Skinner have kids or realise that lecturing false promises of life ruining carnage from any drug use at all is simply dismissed as lies? Kids (and adults) who see many friends or family use drugs and not suffering the promised personal apocalypse tend to just ignore the steady stream of doomsday messages. Sadly, they will probably ignore a message which may one day actually be important. Maybe Jillian Skinhead should read the book, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

COLIN BARNETT - WEST AUSTRALIAN PREMIER

Drug Bin Trial To Go Ahead Despite Opposition 

News Article (ABC News)

March 2008 

The West Australian Premier, Colin Barnett, says he will not stand in the way of police trialing drug amnesty bins at major events, even though he does not support the concept. Police are expected to trial the bins at a music concert in Joondalup on Sunday. The trial follows the death of 17-year-old Gemma Thoms, who died in hospital after taking ecstasy tablets at the Big Day Out music festival in Perth in February. It is believed she swallowed the tablets after fearing police, who were searching people, would find them. Concert goers will be able to use to the bins to dispose illegal drugs before entering the venue without facing any charges. Mr Barnett says he does not like the idea. "The Police Commissioner wants to trial that so he can do that," he said. "It's not something that I believe gives the right message and harm minimisation has been a failure and absolute failure in the treatment of drugs in this state."

Straight from the smelly bowels of those lying anti-Harm Minimisation zealots. If HM is such a failure, why are so many countries now implementing it into their drug policies? For a state premier to blatantly lie by assuming it’s a non-scientific issue without evidence, indicates how out of touch Barnett really is. His views might be fluffy ideology but HM is based on science and medical research with qualified results. The opposite to just “sending the wrong message” or other feel good policies.

SUSSAN LEY MP - FEDERAL SHADOW MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND CUSTOMS

Labor Soft On Border Protection, Soft On Drugs 

By Sussan Ley (Media Release)

April 2009

The Minister for Home Affairs Bob Debus must move swiftly to tighten controls on pill presses being imported into Australia. The smallest of pill presses is capable of pumping out about 6000 pills in just one hour. Considering the use of ecstasy has risen steadily from 1.2% of the population in 1993 to 3.5% in recent years, and we know that the precursor chemicals are slipping though the net all the time, a ban on importing pill presses by unlicensed members of the public is a sensible way of attacking the problem at the sharp end – where manufacturing takes place. The Rudd Labor Government cannot continue to allow organised criminal groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs to use the postal service to make and receive their illicit drug supply. Minister Debus has said there are no plans for even a review of the policy to import pill presses. How can the Rudd Labor Government claim they have a Tough on Drugs strategy when they will not even consider banning the drug making machinery? At the annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, the Rudd Labor Government protested that the term ‘harm reduction’ had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration. This puts Australia at loggerheads with our traditional ‘tough on drugs’ ally, the United States. This further proves the Rudd Labor Government is taking a soft approach to illicit drugs. Experience has proven that harm minimisation has failed and hard-hitting measures are needed. Minister Debus needs to come out of his hole and start making some tough decisions to protect Australia from the flood of illicit drugs crossing our borders.

More from Sussan Ley - Liberal Party News

Sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised criminal syndicates rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another. It is impossible to say what quantity of illegal drugs is slipping through the net but we do know that the prices pad for illegal narcotics in Australia are the highest in the world so there is every reason for organised crime syndicates to target this country 

-Rudd Needs To Clarify: Are Criminals Running Our Docks? - 27, February 2009 

If people smugglers are getting savvy, then so will importers of drugs, weapons and other contraband, so Rudd and his Government need to get savvy too. 

-Rudd And Debus Prove They’re Unable To Protect Our Borders - April 16, 2009 

With Australia being seen once again as a ‘soft target’ by people smugglers and the increasing numbers of illegal vessels arriving on our shores we must put more focus on patrols without taking away from other customs duties such as preventing illicit drugs and weapons entering the country, illegal fishing, and wildlife smuggling. 

-Rudd Leaves Our Borders Vulnerable - April 9, 2009 

Customs Officers are charged with protecting the Australian community by intercepting illegal drugs, weapons, dangerous plant species and smuggled wildlife, not to mention interdiction of people smuggling vessels in our northern waters. 

-Shameful Labor Cuts Customs Staff Pay By Stealth - March 30, 2009 

Gang related crime can happen at our wharves as well as our airports and the Rudd Government needs to shape up on port security to prevent organised criminals smuggling drugs, guns and money through Australia’s docks. It is clear that maritime security is our most vulnerable defence against terrorism, drug trafficking and the illegal movement of people and weapons. 

-Criminal Gangs Exploiting Our Wharves - March 23, 2009 

It is shameful that the Rudd Labor Government feels it is OK to waste $10 million when we have drugs on our streets, and weapons in the hands of outlaw bikie gangs. 

-Kevin Rudd, Robbing Peter To Re-Badge Paul - March 23, 2009 

If the Government cares about stamping out the supply of illicit drugs in Australia, they should admit they made an error in cutting Customs and AFP funding and reverse the cuts in the up-coming Budget. 

-Customs Cocaine Bust Underscores Risk In Labor’s Budget Cuts - February 17, 2009 

In conjunction with several other tasks, Customs are responsible for overseeing mass volumes of imports and exports, along with detecting illicit drugs and prohibited imports to ensure they do not get through the gate. Customs are the front line in protecting our borders from these threats and the Rudd Labor Government has taken this for granted when they recklessly slashed funds to our border protection and law enforcement agencies. 

-Border Security Disaster Looms - December 17, 2008 

Ms Ley said sea containers house the largest volumes of illicit drugs that come into Australia and criminals and organised crime rings rely on workers in the maritime environment to move illicit drugs from one country to another. 

-Changes Needed To Make Australian Ports Secure - October 9, 2008

Like all loyal members of the Liberal Party, Sussan Ley really has an obsession with illicit drugs especially those being smuggled into Australia. After all, it’s her role as Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs to keep the government honest about customs and border security. But maybe she should be honest herself. Not once has Sussan Ley mentioned that only about 10% of illicit drugs coming into this country are detected or confiscated. Fiddling around the edges is not going to stop drugs being imported into Australia. Ending prohibition will.

SENATOR MATHIAS CORMANN - SHADOW PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY FOR HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

What About The Winnable War On Drugs Prime Minister? 

By Mathias Cormann (Media Release)

November 2008 

Kevin Rudd needs to commit to the ‘war on drugs’. In his first year in office the Prime Minister has been leading a ‘war’ on just about everything. Why is it then that his Government has abandoned the critically important war on drugs? More than a year after the release of the comprehensive House of Representatives Committee report “The winnable war on drugs – The impact of illicit drug use on families” the Rudd Government still has not provided any response to the Parliament. In the Government’s propaganda paper on its first year in office the battle faced by too many families against the enemy of drug abuse hardly rates a mention. The time for more Committees and reviews on the challenge of drug abuse is over. This is the time to make decisions and take action. We need decisions focused on winning the war, not on helping the enemy gain more strength. The story in today’s Daily Telegraph is a shocking demonstration of how a completely misguided harm minimisation approach by Labor in NSW is failing young people and their families. Our children don’t need lessons on how to use harmful and illicit drugs. They need to get the clear message that drugs are bad. Of course we have to provide effective treatment to anyone with a drug problem – but it should never ever be done in a way that normalises drug use. Any parent would be shocked and horrified to read the advice that has been circulated to children in NSW schools, including comments such as:

• If you don’t already have a reliable dealer, try to find one and stick with them
• When you’re using a new batch (of speed) only try a little at first - you can always use the rest later if you need to
• Budget for food, rent and bills BEFORE you spend money on drugs
• Don’t buy drugs on credit

It is time the Prime Minister showed some national leadership on this. Teaching 14 year old kids how to use illicit drugs is just outrageous. This is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately! I look forward to meeting with Darren Marton, the founder of the ‘Drugs - No-Way’ campaign in Canberra on Wednesday, along with Ms Bronwyn Bishop, who chaired the House of Representatives Inquiry into Illicit Drugs last year.

Anyone who seriously thinks Bronwyn Bishop’s report, “The Winnable War on Drugs” is worth consideration should instantly be ignored. Topping it up with “Kevin Rudd needs to commit to the ‘war on drugs’” and “this is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately” only backs it up. Maybe they should learn that it’s better to say nothing when you have nothing useful to say. Nothing highlights this better than Cormann’s criticism of the practical tips given to those kids who have started using drugs. Read more here.

THE HON CHRISTOPHER ELLISON - SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

My Decision To Retire From Politics 

By Christopher Ellison (Media Release)

September 2008 

As Minister for Schools, he helped to implement national benchmarks for literacy and numeracy and oversaw a revision of funding for non-government schools. He also set up, for the first time, a National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education. As part of the Prime Minister’s Tough on Drugs Strategy, Senator Ellison oversaw the development of the $7.4 million Schools Drug Education Strategy with the national goal of no illicit drugs in schools.

Looks like his goal of no illicit drugs in schools was a fizzer. Do they really believe these goals of a drug free society? Heck, we can’t even stop drugs getting into prisons but magically we were going to stop drugs in schools. Again, some basic questions need to be asked - Are they really that stupid? If yes, why the hell are we listening to them. If no, they are being deceitful because they know the goals are unachievable.

MIKE HORAN - QLD LIBERAL NATIONAL PARTY(LNP) JUSTICE SPOKESMAN

LNP Justice commitment- Major Sentencing Audit and Law Reform 

By Mike Horan (Media Release)

March 2009 

A major sentencing audit to achieve community standards was a key part of the LNP’s Government commitment to restore confidence in the States struggling Justice System. People were sick and tired of Labor’s weak sentencing laws that allowed serious criminals such as rapists and armed robbers to walk free from court. An LNP Government would conduct an immediate audit of criminal sentencing laws, the results of which would underpin any changes to the laws. The LNP will make Queensland’s drug laws the toughest in the country to stop the scourge of drugs upon young people and crime. As part of the LNP’s commitment to overhaul sentencing laws in Queensland, drug traffickers and serious drug producers can expect serious jail time. An LNP Government would ensure that serious offenders such as drug traffickers serve 100 per cent of their jail sentences. The LNP is committed to introducing telephone interception powers to assist our police in catching the drug producers and dealers. The LNP would provide effective rehabilitation options for first-time young offenders and examine the use of mandatory drug rehabilitation orders for others. The LNP believes that the hard work of our police in catching these criminal should be backed up by tough, effective sentencing. Making excuses for drug dealers and drug criminals needs to end, now. We need a system of justice that holds these people accountable for their actions and puts community safety first. Other LNP Justice Policy Commitments include:

• Immediate Sentence Audit
• Remove detention as a last resort from Juvenile Justice Act
• Establishment of youth training centres to break the cycle of crime and provide a chance for reform
• Mandatory Minimum 3 months Jail for serious assaults on police
• Introduce voluntary intoxication by drug or alcohol as a circumstance of aggravation for all serious violent offences
• Criminal Law Reform- ‘One punch can kill laws’
• Graffiti clean up and tough gate-crashing laws
• Mandatory minimum sentences for Drug traffickers
• Telephone interception powers for police
• No sex offender will be released without having completed a rehabilitation program and considered safe
• Support of Justice staff and career opportunities

Drug Traffickers Should Do Time 

By Mike Horan (Media Release)

February 2009 

The failure of a court in Cairns to sentence a drug trafficker to any real jail time is further evidence that sentencing laws in Queensland need to be reformed. Drug trafficking and illegal drug use was the underlying cause of most robberies and property crime in Queensland. The community expects to see such drug traffickers sent to jail not released with a slap on the wrist. Punishment for crimes must reflect community standards and also protect the community. An immediate parole order release for a serious drug trafficking offence shows the sentencing laws under the Bligh Government are failing. Sentences need to send a clear message to would-be criminals and the rest of the community that such behaviour will be dealt with harshly. If sentences don't reflect community standards it's our job as law-makers to ensure they do ... drug trafficking puts the lives of every Queenslander at risk. Labor has made an art-form of pretending to be tough on crime. They have gone about increasing maximum penalties for offences, but nothing to ensure tough penalties are applied at court, where it counts." 

Mandatory Rehab For Druggies 

By Mike Horan (Media Release)

November 2008 

Changes to Queensland's court system were needed to ensure addicts undertook rehab to break the drug-crime-cycle. Research by the State's Crime and Misconduct Commission showed pressing all people with serious substance abuse problems into mandatory rehab had to be considered as a viable option to just voluntary rehab. The findings of the CMC's study were very welcome and he called on the Bligh government to respond to redress the major problem of drug-linked crime. Queensland is a major source of amphetamines and other hard drugs and we need to ensure people addicted to drugs have access to the support they need. If we can break the cycle of drug crime it will save society in the long term. Figures released in the Corrective Services annual report show 70 per cent of people currently going through the Drug Court do not finish rehab and less people have been going through the program. We need to invest more in the drug rehabilitation and court system to ensure it works. The CMC research shows offenders with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems don't need to be psychologically ready and motivated for treatment to get results with about 65 per cent of those who underwent treatment reporting positive outcomes regardless of whether the treatment was mandatory or voluntary. The CMC research paper, Mandatory treatment and perceptions of treatment effectiveness, looked at the risks and needs of 480 non-custodial drug offenders in Qld. The results suggest people with serious substance abuse problems need support and encouragement to access treatment, so mandatory treatment for offenders may be an effective option.

How do people like Horan get in these positions of power? I can’t fathom how someone is given the justice portfolio and then encourages even more useless law and order initiatives that have failed consistently in other countries including Australia. In the business world, Horan would be sacked and shamed for being completely incompetent. There are so many suggestions from Horan that have failed previously that it resembles a parody comedy skit. Comments like “drug trafficking puts the lives of every Queenslander at risk” and “If we can break the cycle of drug crime it will save society in the long term” have no substance at all but reflect the mindset of a government without real solutions. It’s always easy to get “Tough on Drugs” using standard, vote friendly rhetoric but it doesn’t actually address the problems. If Horan can be so wrong on this issue, why should we trust him with anything else?