And Some More Evidence That Prohibition Has Failed

Report: Cannabis prohibition causing more problems than it fixes.

The most obvious flaw in drug prohibition is the banning of cannabis. Not only is cannabis less harmful than alcohol, not addictive, has many many medical uses and is used regularly by over 80 million people but it also can provide paper, rope, clothing, soap, building materials and other renewable products. Henry Ford’s first car was built and fuelled with cannabis. 

Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on Hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941

--The Cannabis Chronicle

Smoking pot recreationally may not be the healthiest choice for some but the science is fairly clear. For most adults, moderate use will not cause any major harm. Like alcohol though, their are some people who should not participate in cannabis use. Those with a family history of mental health issues and the young are best to keep away. What the authorities refuse to grasp is that prohibition doesn’t stop these people from using cannabis. Prohibition simply places unqualified people, often criminals, in charge of the cannabis market. Strict laws have failed to deter drug use. You would think it would sink in when we discovered that teens find it easier to buy pot than alcohol or that drug use continued to grow over the decades.

Black markets don’t just create violence and crime but a more dangerous product. The quest to increase potency has produced “Skunk” - extra strong weed with a high content of THC and low doses of cannabinoids. Skunk is now the standard for most pot smokers. The latest research has confirmed what many scientists have expected for a long time - THC needs to be balanced with cannabinoids to reduce the negative effects of cannabis. High grade skunk, grown in hydroponic setups, increases THC while reducing cannabinoids. It seems the argument that we now have stronger dope was missing the point altogether. 

Scientifically and logically, the banning of cannabis is one of the strangest policies on this planet. Anti-drug nutters and governments around the world hold on to this idea that we need to be protected from the evil weed. But as the media starts to wind down it’s fanatical campaign against cannabis, the public are slowly learning the truth about cannabis. 

An informed public coupled with pro-cannabis supporters are arming themselves with scientific research and taking their cause to the law makers. Politicians are increasingly being challenged about their support for cannabis prohibition as the latest round of Reefer Madness fades into the history books. Those remaining staunch opponents will not be remembered fondly by the next generation as they seek answers to why our bizarre cannabis laws lasted so long. 

Prohibition of Cannabis

British Medical Journal (BMJ)

Volume 341

By Professor Robin Room

October 2010

Prohibition of cannabis is not achieving its aims in the US, and may even worsen outcomes

A new report, Tools for Debate: US Federal Government Data on Cannabis Prohibition, focuses on the effects of the enforcement of drug prohibition in recent decades in the United States. It shows that efforts to suppress the selling and use of cannabis increased substantially. Adjusting for inflation, the US fed­eral antidrug budget increased from about $1.5bn (£0.95bn; €1.1bn) in 1981 to more than $18bn in 2002. Between 1990 and 2006, annual cannabis related arrests increased from fewer than 350 000 to more than 800 000 and annual sei­zures of cannabis from less than 500 000 lb (226 798 kg) to more than 2 500 000 lb. In the same period the availability of illicit cannabis and the number of users rose: the retail price of cannabis decreased by more than half, the potency increased, and the proportion of users who were young adults went up from about 25% to more than 30%. Intensified enforcement of cannabis prohibition thus did not have the intended effects.

The report then turns to “unintended consequences” of prohibition, arguing that both in the US and in countries sup­plying the markets of affluent countries, drug prohibition con­tributed to increased rates of violence because enforcement made the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over. The report concludes with a brief discussion of the alternatives to prohibition—decriminalisation and legalisa­tion—arguing that experience with regulation of alcohol and tobacco offers many lessons on how a regulated market in can­nabis might best be organised.

The report’s conclusions on the ineffectiveness in the US of “supply control” (the conventional term for enforcement of drug prohibition) are in line with reviews of the evidence from a global perspective.

Tools for Debate joins a bookshelf of reports from the past half century describing perverse effects of drug prohibition and charting ways out of the maze. So far, no government has dared to follow the thread all the way. Now, with the proposition of setting up a legal regulatory system on the California ballot in November, the international drug prohibition system may find itself facing a non-violent popular revolution. Half a century after the present international system was consolidated by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the drug prohibi­tion wave may finally be ebbing.

There is a precedent. A wave of alcohol prohibition swept over the international scene a century ago, with 11 countries adopting prohibition between 1914 and 1920. Eventually the wave receded, with US repeal in 1933 marking the end of alcohol prohibition at the national level. Prohibition was replaced by restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neoliberal free market ideologies of recent decades.

Because the international drug prohibition movement was originally an offshoot of the movement to prohibit alcohol, a detailed examination of the experience with alcohol is particu­larly relevant. The RAND modelling of the effects of legalising marijuana in California projects an increase in consumption, probably a substantial one, but experience with the repeal of alcohol prohibition shows that with substantial state regula­tion, consumption can be constrained. However, the alcohol control regimes of that time were far more restrictive than they are now in the United Kingdom and in many English speaking jurisdictions.

Analysis shows that these strong alcohol regulatory systems limited the harms from drinking in the period before about 1960, but the lessons have not been applied to regulating cannabis or other drugs. In some places, state control instru­ments—such as licensing regimes, inspectors, and sales outlets run by the government—are still in place for alcohol and these could be extended to cover cannabis. For instance, state retail monopolies for off sale of alcohol in Canada (except Alberta), the Nordic countries (except Denmark), and several US states would provide workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis, as has been proposed in Oregon.

The US has a particular hurdle with respect to regulating cannabis: US court decisions on “commercial free speech” question restrictions on advertising and promotion of a legal product. Barriers also exist at an international level. Psycho­active substances such as cannabis (and alcohol and tobacco) should be exempted from World Trade Organization free trade provisions. The requirements in the drug control treaties for criminalisation of non-medical production and use need to be neutralised, at least with respect to domestic markets. For countries following this thread, adopting a new framework convention on cannabis control could allow a regulated legal domestic market,3 while keeping in place international market controls as a matter of comity (whereby jurisdictions recognise and support each other’s internal laws).

The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the pro­hibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results. The challenge for researchers and policy analysts now is to flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes, as was done at the brink of repeal of US alcohol prohibition.

Robin Room professor, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne; Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs, Stockholm University; and AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Fitzroy, VIC 3065, Australia

Related Articles

More Evidence of Failed Prohibition

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

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work - So What Do We Do Next?

Jeepers - HeraldSun Says Prohibition has Failed

More Evidence of Failed Prohibition

We all grew up with the knowledge that alcohol prohibition in the US was a complete disaster. We have all seen a least a few movies depicting Al Capone and co. terrorising the public in a bid to control the market for illegal booze. We all understand that people will drink alcohol regardless of the laws and regulation removes the criminal element, sets safety standards and keeps the industry under control. So why do we ignore the same scenario with drug prohibition? Why do we keep banning drugs under the umbrella of prohibition when prohibition clearly doesn’t work?

The findings suggest that the ban did not have a significant impact on those who already used mephedrone…

-Dr Karen McElrath: Queen’s School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work. 

Prohibition remains permanent in many countries because of speculation not facts. The politicians in power keep telling us that society will fall part if we legalise drugs and banning them will keep us safe from ourselves. Dishing out harsh penalties for drug possession deters drug use we are told. But what happens when research tells us differently?

Mephedrone Use In Northern Ireland Post-Ban

Medical News Today

October 2010

Researchers at Queen's University Belfast have completed one of the first studies of mephedrone use in Northern Ireland since the drug was outlawed earlier this year. They found that the ban did not deter those mephedrone users surveyed from taking the substance. 

Interviews with 23 mephedrone users were completed during a two-month period (May and June 2010) following the legislation that made the drug illegal in the UK. Study participants were aged 19 to 51 years, around half of whom (12) were female. 19 of the 23 people who took part in the study were employed, and most occupations were affiliated with business, trades, the service industry or the public sector. 

The research was led by Dr Karen McElrath at Queen's School of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work. 

The key findings from the study were:

• 21 of the 23 study participants had used mephedrone after the ban.
• Only one person was very much opposed to using the substance again.
• Approximately half the sample preferred mephedrone to cocaine or ecstasy. Some had experienced negative effects, for example, sleeplessness, difficult comedowns and next-day depression, but these factors generally did not deter them from using the substance again.
• None of those who took part in the research felt that 'legal highs' were safe simply because they were legal.
• None of the study participants recalled an initial interest in using mephedrone because it had been legal. Rather, its legality before April 2010 meant that it was easier to access and cheaper than many illegal substances.
• Prior to the ban, only three interviewees had purchased mephedrone from 'head shops' and four interviewees had purchased mephedrone from online suppliers. The majority tended to access mephedrone through friends or dealers.
• The majority of interviewees had prior experience of taking ecstasy, amphetamine or cocaine.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, all the study participants had also consumed alcohol, although the timing and amount of alcohol varied.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, six of the 23 participants had used another psychoactive substance, other than alcohol.
• During their most recent use of mephedrone, most participants had consumed between one-two grams of the drug, although half recalled bingeing on mephedrone, sharing upward of seven-eight grams with two to three other people.

Dr McElrath said: "This is one of the first studies into mephedrone use in Northern Ireland since it was made illegal earlier this year. The findings suggest that the ban did not have a significant impact on those who already used mephedrone, at least during the two-month period that followed the ban. We are keen to develop this research further and to compare our results with a similar study conducted in Waterford prior to the ban on mephedrone in the Republic of Ireland in May 2010." 

The study was part of a cross-border research partnership with Marie Clare Van Hout at the Waterford Institute of Technology. 

Mephedrone was made illegal in the UK in April 2010, and in the Republic of Ireland in May 2010. 

Source: 

Anne-Marie Clarke 

Queen's University Belfast 

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

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

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

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

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

Crackdowns On Drug Dealers Led To Rise In Violent Crime, Study Finds

The Independent 

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter

April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

Even The Feds Want Drug Policy Changes

Soft on Drugs Causes Ambulance Call Outs to Rise

The Liberal Party on Drugs

Sophie Mirabella - Another “Tough on Drugs” Looney Lib

Stop Repeating Yourselves ... You’re Wrong

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

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

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

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

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

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

-Kirsten Drysdale - Hungry Beast. ABC TV

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

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

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

-Comment by Terry McKinney. Vancouver BC (28/05/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

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

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

-Comment by plzHoldSteady (22/01/2008) - The Australian Heroin Diaries

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

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

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

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

New Approach To Drugs Seeks Footing In Costa Rica

Tico Times

By Mike McDonald 

April 2010

The drug debate in Latin America has started to shift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

What Does Prescription Heroin Really Mean for Junkies?

The Start of Prescription Heroin in Australia?

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

Heroin Assisted Treatment Winning Approval in Europe

Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work - So What Do We Do Next?

Excellent article from Chris Middendorp. It really doesn't get better than this.

Drug Prohibition Doesn't Work - So What Do We Do Next?
The Age
By Chris Middendorp
January 2010


Australia needs to join the growing worldwide debate on new policies.

IT'S not Suzanne's fault that she became addicted to heroin at 16. For a while it numbed the emotional pain of the abuse she suffered as a ward of the state. Four years later, she uses heroin three times a day just to feel normal. She never knows how strong it will be and has overdosed six times in the past year. Without the first aid of ambulance officers, Suzanne would be dead - like four of her friends who died from overdoses in the past year.

Suzanne's habit costs more than $1000 a week. She engages in street sex work - the only way she has to raise that kind of money. Suzanne is sometimes beaten by the men who pay her for sex. She needs to spend every dollar she can generate on maintaining her heroin addiction. She sleeps on the streets and often goes hungry. Last winter, pneumonia nearly finished her off. She has criminal records for possession and street prostitution. She can't get a conventional job.

For many Australian drug users, the criminalisation of drugs continues to create significant misery. The more radical drug policy reformers would argue that if Suzanne could pick up a regulated dose of heroin from a chemist for $5 a day (as addicts can methadone), she could establish a healthy and safe life. In other words, her regrettable situation is largely caused by drug laws, not by the heroin itself.

It's a fair point. While current drug laws have not stopped people using drugs, they have produced two dreadful by-products. They have spawned a ruthless black market generating billions of dollars, and have turned users, often teenagers, into criminals.

Despite legal prohibition, the number of people who use illicit drugs is greater now than ever. Taking as an example marijuana, which accounts for two-thirds of all drug arrests, more than 2 million Australians will smoke this substance over the next year.

But there are indications that times may be changing. Barack Obama's Administration is the first to stop using the ''war on drugs'' rhetoric that Richard Nixon initiated when he declared the conflict 40 years ago. Obama has even said publicly that the war has been an "utter failure". This is momentous. Until recently, America had been a hectoring advocate of drug policies involving prohibition and zero tolerance - with Australia marching to the beat of their drum. In 1988, the US Congress actually passed laws declaring that the US would be drug-free by 1995. Billions of dollars have been wasted on policing, yet drugs remain a central fact of American life.

In several Latin American countries and in mainland Europe, legislators have already brought about significant reforms in drug policy in recent times. This has not involved an open-slather legalisation of drugs, but the decriminalisation of personal possession and use. Most famously, in 2001 Portugal decriminalised all drugs - from heroin to cocaine - and, to many people's surprise, overall drug use actually fell.

In Switzerland, giving addicts free heroin in supervised clinics has been deemed a success, with begging, prostitution, homelessness and burglary all dropping dramatically. A national referendum in 2008 voted overwhelmingly to retain the program, which began as a trial in 1994.

The focus of any drug debate should not be morals or the law; it should concentrate on the welfare of human beings. The common use of the term "junkie" helps us to maintain the belief that users of substances are in some way lesser beings. Part of the reason we've comfortably followed the prohibition path for so long has been mainstream culture's view of drug users as subhuman creatures who need redemption. What they really need is medical support and laws that make sense.

In Britain, the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, a respected drug reform group, has been working to dispel ignorance and prejudice. Believing that the time for action is now, the group recently published After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation. The document is generating worldwide support from doctors, lawmakers and commentators. It pivots on the question that if we can accept that prohibition does not work, what do we do next? How we answer this is vital.

After the War harnesses a great deal of intellectual firepower to argue the case for drug reform and social transformation. It examines how decriminalisation might work with strict regulations for vendors, outlets and venues where drugs could be used. It will upset the orthodoxy and exhilarate reformers.

The most common argument in favour of maintaining a ''war on drugs'' is that drugs are harmful. But we know that if we had to rate drugs by the harm they actually did, then alcohol and cigarettes would go to the top of the list. Regulation and education are the key. It is always worth recalling that when America made alcohol illegal through prohibition in 1919, they created powerful crime figures such as Al Capone, and people started drinking seriously dangerous moonshine, more potent than wine or beer.

Many people don't think seriously about drug use until a family member becomes affected. The law and order populism of the ''war on drugs'' has been allowed to develop precisely because free debate and careful thinking has been sidelined. Let's hope those days are numbered.

Chris Middendorp is a community worker and writer.

Jeepers - HeraldSun Says Prohibition has Failed

What is going on in Murdoch land? First the Adelaide Advertiser publishes a rational article on illicit drugs and now the HeraldSun publishes 2 of them ... on the same day! The last 2 articles might be from the same writer but nevertheless it’s still a shock. The real surprise though is who the author is - Alan Howe. For someone with a few horrible ultra right opinions, Alan Howe seems to be taking a long walk to the opposite side of ideology park. Howe has written before about the criminal justice system not being tough enough and pushes for longer and harsher sentences for those convicted in court. Nearly half of those charged with criminal offences are drug related which makes Howe’s article even more surprising. All that aside, it’s hard to argue that drug prohibition has been successful and to point out it’s failure is an easy task when the facts are known. Why this has eluded so many for so long will become more remarkable as the years pass. But let’s not take any credit away from Alan Howe who must have struggled with his own feelings to write not one but two articles on the matter. And then there's the potential falling out with the boss.

Prohibition Has Failed
Herald Sun
By Alan Howe
October 2009

EVEN among the bulging annals of American improbability, this meeting was right up there.

The two most famous faces on the planet joined in a war on drugs -- the War on Terror of its day.

Since mid-1969, US president Richard Nixon had toyed with the notion of declaring drugs public enemy No.1.

Then, late in 1970, he received a surprise call from the King. Not a phone call. Elvis Presley turned up, uninvited, at the White House asking to see the president.

"I have done an in-depth study of drug abuse and communist brainwashing techniques,'' he told the fascinated Nixon.

"And I am right in the middle of the whole thing where I can and will do the most good . . . the drug culture, the hippie elements, Black Panthers, etc, do not consider me as their enemy, or as they call it The Establishment. I call it America and I love it, sir."

He asked to be made a Federal Agent at Large. Nixon presented him with the badge. Elvis presented Nixon with a World War II-era Colt 45, the pair nicely ticking off America's twin evils.

Nixon kept the meeting secret for a time and months later launched his offensive against the drugs scourge.

What a dream ticket: Presley, the biggest rock star of all time, would be dead in just over six years, having consumed 19,000 doses of sedatives, stimulants and narcotics in his last 30 months; the gin-soaked Nixon, sometimes too drunk to take calls from other world leaders, liked to pop a mood-altering prescription drug called Dilantin, illegally supplied to him in 1000-capsule bottles.

The US war on drugs is estimated to have cost more than $1 trillion -- more than enough money to put Osama bin Laden on the moon. It puts a million Americans in jail each year.

Plenty of Australians are jailed each year, too, for possessing and using illegal drugs.

1In a little-publicised contribution to Kevin Rudd's 2020 summit last year, Brisbane doctor Wendell Rosevear, who has worked in the prison system for decades, called for all drugs to be legalised. He believes the billions of dollars spent in Australia on policing, convicting and jailing addicts and their suppliers should be spent on drug intervention and education programs.

"Drugs are illegal, so we put people in jail to solve the problem and we label people who use drugs as bad -- it doesn't make them feel valuable,'' he said. "If we think we can just put it out of sight, out of mind, we are actually devaluing people and not solving the problem.''

Given that the West's various wars on drugs have failed so miserably, perhaps we should look more closely at Rosevear's proposals.

Certainly, he is not alone. Arriving in Australia today is Norm Stamper, the legendary former chief of the Seattle police, and also a campaigner for legalisation of all drugs.

Stamper is being hosted by the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, which believes we can minimise the damage from the drugs trade -- the violence, property crimes and deadly infectious diseases, not to mention the dizzying and untaxed profits being made by Australia's drug gangs -- if we relax our laws.

"That America proclaimed drugs public enemy No.1 and declared all-out war on them I now see as a colossal mistake,'' Stamper said from Washington state at the weekend as he prepared for his trip.

"The war was not against drugs so much as it was against people,'' he said.
"Particularly people of colour, and young people and poor people.

"We've incarcerated tens of millions of non-violent drug offenders and yet drugs are more readily available, at lower prices and higher levels of potency than when we declared war against them.''

I'd call that failure. He does. You'd probably agree.

Stamper is a prominent member of a 13,000-strong international organisation called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) that includes current and former police officers, district attorneys, drug enforcement administration officers, homeland security agents, prosecutors, judges and prison wardens who want an end to the prohibition of now-illegal drugs.

They see the lessons of the US Prohibition 90 years ago being forgotten. Back then, alcohol manufacture, sale and transportation were outlawed. It barely affected consumption, but it led to deeply rooted criminal systems being established and crime rates soaring as demand was met, albeit illegally. Like it is with serious drugs today.

STAMPER sees "softer'' drugs, such as marijuana, being decriminalised first, and when lessons are learned, harder drugs following suit.

Having worked in San Diego, he has first-hand experience of the Mexico towns that are now are the front line of the drug cartel wars for control of the lucrative drugs trade.

Ideally, Stamper sees the state growing, manufacturing and controlling the supply of drugs, although LEAP does not have a view on this.

Of course, that's a much stricter regime than we have for the manufacture and sale of alcohol, notwithstanding the alcohol-fuelled violence that so regularly sees injury and death on Melbourne streets.


Cartels Sell Their Nation's Soul
Herald Sun
By Alan Howe
October 2009

THE big boys of the drugs trade make our Underbelly idiots look like they've been on Jenny Craig.

All the numbers are big: Mexico's Attorney-General said his country has spent $US6.5 billion in the past two years fighting the drug gangs.

The cartels will earn about $US15 billion this year; more than 6000 Mexicans will die in cartel warfare in 2009; Mexico has 130,000 standing soldiers, while the two biggest cartels are believed to have 100,000 between them; 24,000 Mexican soldiers are assigned to tackle the drug bosses; 5000 troops work in the town of Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso -- 250 people are murdered there each month.

Last month gunmen broke into a drug rehabilitation centre there, lined up 17 young men and shot them dead. It only just made the news.

The drug cartels openly advertise on street hoardings for government soldiers to defect to them. It's better pay and the kills are more regular.

Mexico is descending into nothing more than a narco-state supplying the demands of Americans who want to get high: in one dreadful weekend in Tijuana nine men were found decapitated; three were policemen, their badges found in their mouths.

Some months back a dozen soldiers were found, also decapitated, their hands tied behind their backs. Heads are rolled on to popular dance floors and tortured bodies turn up in school playgrounds.

It is all too much for some. Former Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso now sides with Australia's Wendell Rosevear and Seattle's Norm Stamper.

"The status of addicts must change from that of drug buyers in the illegal market to that of patients cared for in the public health system,'' he wrote two weeks ago.

He wants attention moved from repression of drug users and focused instead on treatment and prevention, the direction in which Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Bolivia, and Ecuador had already moved.

Related Articles:
Oops! Adelaide Advertiser Gets It Right
Fairfax Media Fights the Good Fight
Drug Hysteria - Headlines from News Ltd

Collateral Damage

They used to be called innocent victims of war but thanks to the amazing miracle of public relations, these innocent victims are now called collateral damage

Technically, collateral damage is not only reserved for those killed or brutalised during war but any unintentional damage including property. Most people though, know it to mean unnecessary deaths during a war especially the innocent. Property and the injured are usually overlooked. And face it, any collateral damage still breathing after an attack involving the latest weaponry used in modern warfare was probably better off being killed in the first place. I recent saw a documentary that said citizens killed during war now stands at about 90% of the total dead. Before WW1, it was about 10%. Mmmm, so much for precision weaponry and the obfuscatory rants by Donald Rumsfeld.

I wonder what the collateral damage is for that never ending war called the "War on Drugs"? Let’s see: victims of shoot-outs between street dealers, those caught in police drug raids, those caught up in the war between the Mexican cartels vs. the Mexican government, the farmers and citizens effected by Plan Columbia, Afghanis, the recipients of the death penalty, suicides, the prison population worldwide, medical marijuana patients, victims of drug related crime, families of drug addicts, HIV/AIDS/Hep C sufferers, drug mules, users, drug dealer’s wives, drug dealer’s children, those who are as a deterrent by the courts, those with chronic pain etc. The "War on Drugs" touches everyone in someway. Whether it’s just having to make way for police with sniffer dogs at the local nightclub or having your government installed by the US to help their operations eliminating coca plantations. You might be arrested for having medical marijuana you purchased legally or you might be shot accidently from a drug deal gone wrong. It may as severe as your daughter going into a coma and dying from contaminated pills or simply watching adult politicians ignoring scientific evidence and climbing over each other to prove who’s “toughest on drugs”. Everyday, it creeps more into your life. 
As the public start to realise the complete failure of the "War on Drugs", more extreme measures are being executed from both sides of the law. Mexico is a perfect example. The international black market for drugs is so huge that organised crime has more power than the government. Instead of tackling the source problem of prohibition that creates this power and wealth, the government stepped up it’s law enforcement operations to include the military. In retaliation to having their members arrested or killed, the drug cartels flexed their muscles and went on a terror campaign to get the upper hand. They rolled out decapitated heads onto a dance floor in a major nightclub, set up an ambush where they massacred a dozen drug enforcement officers and left them in a pile on the side of a road and even announced the deaths of certain officers over the police radio before killing them a few hours later. The response ... the government called in more army personnel to crack down even harder. On it goes... 

Closer to home, the amphetamines problem followed a similar path. As we saw in the TV show, Underbelly, the more police who zoned in on the manufacturers, the more violent they got. Then there was the crack down on cold tablets containing pseudoephedrine which is a core ingredient in street amphetamines. First they restricted sales of one packet per person but the illegal manufacturers organised “buying groups” who would visit multiply chemists each day. in 2006, products containing pseudoephedrine was rescheduled as a "Pharmacist Only Medicine" (Schedule 3) which meant it was only sold with approval of the pharmacist. Then they created a registry and refused sales to suspicious buyers which of course lead to break-ins and robberies. The latest trend is to ram-raid a car through the chemist shop window. When is someone going to be shot or stabbed, if it hasn’t happened already? What about those who are simply sick and need adequate medication - will they be refused their cold tablets? So what’s next? There is already talk of banning pseudoephedrine in Australia and some chemists have stopped selling products with pseudoephedrine all together. History tells us that organised crime will come up with a solution and the only losers will again be the public. The lesson is: when it comes to illegal drugs ... crime will find a way. Instead of removing prohibition - the source of profit for the black market, the "War on Drugs" mentality continues with the fanciful view that the war is winnable. And as the stakes get higher, the collateral damage grows.

Daughter Of Drug Agent Seized, Raped
Philippine Daily Inquirer
By Nikko Dizon
July 2009

MANILA, Philippines—A young daughter of a government agent involved in fighting drug syndicates was abducted at the weekend and later found drugged and sexually abused in a heinous attack that provoked Malacanang to warn late Sunday night: “This is now a war on drugs.”

The girl, a minor, is “still in shock” and is confined in a hospital, a top government official told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, asking not to be identified because the family had asked him not to talk about the matter with the media.

Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said in a statement that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who appointed herself in January the country’s “anti-drug czar,” had been told of the attack.

“The President has just been informed … We will mobilize all forces to help the family involved,” Remonde said.

Before Malacañang issued its statement, law enforcers said they were looking at a certain drug syndicate supposedly with political connections as the possible perpetrator of the attack.

The Inquirer decided not to identify the agent or the office where he works to protect the family’s identity and the girl’s interest.

A Philippine law on violence against women and children prohibits the publication of any identifying information about the victim or a family member without the family’s consent.

The tragedy that befell the family appears to show how audacious drug syndicates have become in the Philippines, which ranks fifth in the world in terms of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) seizures in the last 10 years.

Officials have put the value of the illegal drugs trade in the country at a high estimate of P300 billion and a low estimate of P150 billion a year.

The girl’s tragedy also strikes a grim parallel to what has happened in other countries where drug cartels and gangs have turned drug trafficking into a frightful, flourishing business.

In Mexico alone, nearly 10,000 drug traffickers, state agents and civilians have been killed in drug war-related incidents since 2007, the Los Angeles Times has reported. Some victims were beheaded.

‘This is narco-politics’

“Without discounting other suspects, I think this is the handiwork of a drug syndicate which was the subject of a recent crackdown … just by assessing previous incidents following the bust,” the top official told the Inquirer.

He described the syndicate as “well-connected politically.”

“This involves narco-politics. May kalaliman ito (This goes deep) assuming the angle we are pursuing is right. But we’re bent on considering that angle,” the official said.

Another theory is “baka napag tripan ng barkada (a gang might have taken a fancy to the girl) but that is speculative,” an Inquirer source said.

Sketchy reports indicated that the girl went missing on Saturday night. She was recovered at around 6 a.m. Sunday near a military facility in Luzon, the official said.

There had also been a previous, but failed, attempt to abduct the young girl, the official said.

Both the rich and poor

Illegal drugs have become an insidious, pervasive menace in the Philippines, sucking into their vortex both the rich and the poor.

Of the country’s 3.4 million drug users, 1.8 million are regular users while 1.6 million are occasional users, law enforcers said.

The 2009 World Drug Report released by the United Nations recently said the Philippines was fifth after China, the United States, Thailand and Taiwan in terms of shabu seizures from 1998 to 2007.

“The Philippines remains a significant source of high potency crystalline methamphetamine used both domestically and exported to locations in East and Southeast Asia and Oceania,” the report said.

It said that while many countries manufactured shabu, China, Burma (Myanmar) and the Philippines accounted for most of the production.

Foreign chemists

The report noted that the illegal drug was often manufactured in industrial-size laboratories operated by transnational organized crime syndicates and staffed by foreign chemists.

The UN report said that in 2007, a notable increase in the seizure of methamphetamine-related manufacturing facilities in the Philippines was reported with nine significant laboratories and 13 chemical warehouses seized. This rose to 10 laboratories in 2008.

The report identified interregional trafficking routes as being from Burma to Bangladesh and India; from Hong Kong, China, to Australia, Indonesia, Japan and New Zealand; from the Philippines to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States; and from East and Southeast Asia to Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The report said that global markets for cocaine, opiates and cannabis were steady or in decline, while the production and use of synthetic drugs was increasing in the developing world.

Cannabis or marijuana remained the most widely used drug around the world, although estimates were less precise. With a report from Inquirer Research

Related Articles
Death Squad in Delaware: The Case of the Murdered Marine [Link]
Police: drug sting ends in death of innocent passerby [Link]
Parents Blame Tallahassee Police In Drug Informant's Death [Link]
In wake of 2 fatal shootings, some question police tactics [Link]
Drug War Claims Another Casualty [Link]
Tallahassee PD's Pathetic Response to Rachel Hoffman's Death [Link]
Police: Man Burned To Death Over Drug Debt [Link]
Civil rights news: lima, ohio, cops shoot and kill bystander woman holding baby during drug raid - baby injured [Link]
Chesapeake police officer shot to death serving drug warrant [Link]
Mexican Police Shooting Down Drug Planes, Officials Declare [Link]

A special thank you for these links to:
Just Say Know… To The Drug War Internet Explorer Other browsers

Lies, Deceit, DFA and Herschel Baker

The most obvious flaw with pushing Zero Tolerance drug policies and prohibition is that you have to lie. Not just a few ambiguous quasi-facts but straight out deceit. For those who are religious it becomes a major problem as lying is also a serious breach of their self proclaimed faith.

To be part of a mostly Christian group like Drug Free Australia (DFA) who consistently have to contradict facts and science to push their Zero Tolerance message, there must be some compelling motives. And there is. Selfish motives ... conservative ideology, evangelism, fear of a changing world etc. It's not about better treatment for addicts, helping people or being Christian. I doubt that anyone, especially dedicated Christians would support their cruel, non compassionate dogma. Some might argue that they should just be ignored as irrelevant, similar to the professionals who simply overlook them as unscientific, biased and agenda driven. The problem is that they are dangerous. So when I found this comment(below) posted on The Australian Drug Blog from DFA’s Herschel Baker, I decided it was so full of deceit in two short paragraphs that it needed a response.

The cost imposed by alcohol abuse on society exceeds billions annually. This cost is not met by the money collected yearly by alcohol tax revenues. Each day people die from alcohol-related deaths and drink driving. Do tax revenues cover these costs? The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior. The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal. Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.

Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement. Alcohol, is a legal drug for adults, is by far the drug of choice among young people. Moreover, attitudes toward illicit drugs have become far more negative than teenage attitudes toward drinking. We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink. It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.
-Herschel Baker : Drug Free Australia (DFA) - The Australian Drug Blog

When I first read this post, instead of my usual head shaking in disbelief at their stupidity, I was outraged and angry. In what could possibly be the most disgraceful comments ever, Herschel Baker stated that prohibition has saved thousands of lives. The truth is, worldwide, prohibition has caused maybe a million or so deaths over the years including massive suffering and alienation. It also includes the deaths and suffering of people I know as well as my own experience.

Apart from the prohibition fallacy, the post included several other major lies. Is this the standard course of action for DFA? To trick the public, government and MSM into believing their deluded ideology? Is lying acceptable as a means to an end? Do they have a pass from god to lie? Maybe this is why the scientific and medical community treat them with so much suspicion and disdain. Whichever way you look at it, it is deceitful. The really disturbing claim in this post is that prohibition saves lives. There is no mention of those pesky druggies who died or suffered at the hands of prohibition. No remorse for the carnage caused on people’s lives. Just hollow praise for a sick lie.

For those who have died from a dirty hit, overdosed in secret, been a victim of drug crime, killed in the line of duty etc. - What about us!!!

For the residents of Mexico on the US border who have been decapitated, the Colombian public tortured by the paramilitary, the non violent detainees who have died in the barbaric US prison system, the drug couriers executed in SE Asia, the drug addicts jailed and beaten in Russia, the Middle East, China etc. - What about us!!!

For my friends/family who have died or suffered - What about us!!!

Baker’s farcical quest to help drug addicts and improve drug treatment is hypocritical, mendacious and deceitful. His real mission is to enforce his interpretation of god’s law on society regardless of the carnage it causes. Deliberately lying should worry a real Christian but when you support the massive death toll from prohibition over the years and even praise it, then lying is just a piss in the ocean in comparison.

Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.

For fuck’s sake, the cost of prohibition is the single biggest argument against prohibition. The US spend $69 billion dollars every year fighting the unwinnable war on drugs. Australia spends over $10 billion (Federal, states, local government, policing, incarceration etc) in total with most going towards law and order. The jail costs alone to keep non violent drug users locked up is enormous throughout the world. The resources to arrest pot smokers and process them through court is huge and one of the biggest complaints from police forces. How can Herschel Baker claim prohibition saves $billions in resources? The fact is, it’s a lie and any normal person should know this.

The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior.

Wrong. One standard drink causes a degree of intoxication. That’s the point isn’t it? Otherwise we would all be drinking chocolate milk, soft drink or non alcohol wine. Tricky Dicky Nixon tried that argument in the 1970s and look what that started - The "War on Drugs".

For the purposely ignorant, “a few drinks” has no effect. Not true. Alcohol gives you a mild relaxation effect from one standard drink. About the same effect as one Valium, a few puffs on a joint, a small amount of opiates like morphine or heroin. This old argument of “a few drinks versus getting stoned” was dismissed decades ago but the anti-drug crusaders continue to play on the public’s ignorance. The fallacy that drug users cannot vary their intake like drinkers do is part of the lie that any use of illicit drugs deems the user instantly “out of their mind”. Attaching “the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior [sic]” to intoxication is part of a primary school formula; Intoxication = danger and drugs = intoxication so drugs = danger. The missing variables are drug type, intoxication type, levels of intoxication and harm level of intoxication per type. Much too complex for the public when you can simply lie.

But isn’t this the tried and tested strategy for DFA? Make drug use a simple moral issue and keep the complexities of scientific facts away from the public. The most important variable overlooked here is the type of drug and Baker puts them all in the same basket. When was the last time someone committed robbery purely because they were “intoxicated” from a joint?

The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal

Another lie. Drugs are already available everywhere and overall they are inherently less dangerous than alcohol. A survey published in 3 major US media outlets by LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) asked the question, would you use hard drugs if they were legal? 99% said no. Cannabis has already been used by 40% of the western world and many reports claim that teenagers find it easier to obtain cannabis than alcohol and cigarettes. The simple truth is that the drug using population is mostly saturated already. Sure, there might be a slight initial increase but it would have to increase about 10 fold to over 80% to match alcohol use.

Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement.

Absolutely bullocks. There is no evidence what-so-ever that harsher penalties prevent drug use. This is easily demonstrated by the US having very strict drug laws but remain as the world’s number one illicit drug consumer. Incidentally, they spend $billions on education and prevention. On the other end of the scale, The Netherlands and Switzerland have much more liberal drug laws but use in these countries is below the European average.

We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink.

What a statement! Have we really tried to stop all high school seniors from “taking a drink”? (this reeks of the Temperance Movement). We actively promote alcohol through advertising and often encourage it as normal behaviour. Until the recent push by the Rudd government, there has never been a serious attempt at changing our drinking culture. But drinking is not the problem as European communities have been giving their children alcohol for centuries. It’s the countries that strongly enforce total abstinence for kids that introduces the “forbidden fruit” factor. For Herschel Baker and DFA, alcohol takes second place to drugs although it causes more damage than all illicit drugs combined. Adding comments like the above is an attempt to discredit a pragmatic approach to illicit drugs like education and reinforce Baker’s preferred tactic of being “tough on drugs”.

It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.

Ludicrous? It’s been done already. Does Herschel Baker forget about the success of anti-smoking campaigns for one of the world’s most harmful and addictive substances ... tobacco? DFA are a disgrace. Their inane ramblings now stand out instead of being lost in the daily barrage of similar, like minded ideology. The heyday of Howard’s 1950s style Australia is over and they no longer have unlimited government support. Now they must make their own way which seems to include making comments on internet blogs and lying. With the demise of Howard and Bush, organisations like DFA will have to face a future of Harm Minimisation and evidence based policies replacing faith based initiatives. Maybe this pragmatic new era will finally expose the lies and deceit of dangerous and desperate groups like DFA.