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

It doesn’t get any funnier than this.

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

Mixing The Drugs Message
The Daily Telegraph
January 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miracles Of An Ordinary Kind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Australia Drug Foundation

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

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

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


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

Harm Minimisation - The Christian Thing To Do

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

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

The Christian Institute on Drugs

There has been much debate lately about the UK government’s decision to flatly reject the advice of their own appointed expert group, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and not down grade ecstasy to a class B drug. Several media articles have suggested that by ignoring scientific evidence, common sense and reason, the UK government has failed to act in the best interests of the people.

The Christian Institute added their voice to the debate with an article titled, 'Killer' drug ecstasy to remain in class A on their website. The article was typical of their prohibitionist stance including quotes from supporters of the government’s decision.

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: “Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably. The Government has a duty to protect the public and firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.”

Unsurprisingly, the comments were the usual mishmash of moral issues and anti-drug sound bytes.

Ian Johnston, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said: “This is not some academic or scientific exercise, this is dealing with people’s lives. If we downgrade ecstasy, we are in danger of sending mixed messages out to young and vulnerable people.”

The article even included a comment from discredited anti-drug crusader, Professor, Andy Parrott.

Professor Andy Parrott of Swansea University, who has spent more than 14 years conducting research into ecstasy, says Prof Nutt has significantly understated the number of deaths caused by the drug.

CANNABIS CLAIM
In what might come as a bit of a surprise to some, the article also included a matter-of-fact statement that down classing cannabis was a disaster.

In 2004, under advice from the ACMD, the Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C. It proved to be a disaster and the Government reversed the policy earlier this year.
The Christian Institute -  'Killer' drug ecstasy to remain in class A

But it wasn't a disaster. Cannabis use actually dropped during the period of being a class C drug. The evidence for the claimed “disaster” goes back to an earlier article by The Christian Institute:

Since the downgrade of cannabis in 2004 judges, police, parents and mental health experts have called for the move to be reversed because of the damage it has caused.


The availability of skunk - the strongest form of cannabis - has soared since the law was weakened. According to Home Office research, it now accounts for between 70% and 80% of samples seized by police, compared with 15% six years ago.


In April senior police officers called for a return to tougher laws. The Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales argued that cannabis should be returned to class B to “…send out a clear message - especially to the vulnerable and the young - that cannabis is illegal and can be dangerous.”


They said: “The downgrading to Class ‘C’ sent out the wrong message, unintentionally suggesting that cannabis was harmless and legal.”
-The Christian Institute: Lords consider plan for tougher cannabis laws

Here are the facts:

Senior police want cannabis reclassified

"This has been exacerbated by the wider availability of stronger forms of the drug. Many heroin and cocaine users began their drug dependency with cannabis use in their teens,"
-The Superintendents' Association

How about that for a statement! Hinting that cannabis will lead to heroin and cocaine dependency is straight from the anti-drug crusaders handbook of propaganda. Maybe they should have cleared up the fact that hard drug users also started drinking alcohol, coffee and slurpees too and that cannabis itself is not the factor that leads to heroin and cocaine. It ‘s mainly those at the top of the Superintendents' Association that are voicing their support to reclassify cannabis. There have been several senior police who have publicly dismissed the need to reclassify cannabis but they don’t rate a mention in any articles by The Christian Institute. Some district police chiefs have even called for an end to prohibition all together and many are not prepared to enforce cannabis laws.

Sends the wrong message
The champion of all anti-drug slogans. Whether it actually means anything in the real world is debatable. The trade off for “sending the right message” is usually the truth or even people’s lives.

Stronger potency (skunk)
Debunked. Higher potency leads to less intake which ironically is probably a a plus for stronger cannabis. A simple comparison can be made with alcohol. If someone drinks 2 bottles of beer on a given night, they wouldn’t consume 2 bottles of whisky just because it’s available. Anti-drug crusaders cannot grasp the concept that drug users pace themselves and instead subscribe to the myth that taking drugs means getting as stoned as possible, as quickly as possible.

Cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs
Disproved many years ago. The only gateway effect is from strict cannabis laws that force both hard and soft drug users into the same circles. Cannabis does not lead to users wanting something harder.

Links to mental illness

The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Advisory Council had been looking at new research from Keele University about links between cannabis and mental illness. He said the study found nothing to support a theory that rising cannabis use had led to more cases of schizophrenia.
-BBC: Police want cannabis reclassified

Cannabis use has increased ten fold since the 1960s but schizophrenia cases have not increased per capita. Also, psychosis is only triggered in those that are predisposed to the condition. Heavy use though does cause mental health problems. For an average user, moderate use does not cause mental illness.

So much for the truth.

But this is not just about the rejection of research and evidence. There is nothing factual to suggest that stricter laws prevent drug use and the fact they supported the reversal of an already successful strategy reveals how far they will go to assert their ideology. Conservative media outlets like The Christian Institute have driven the government to make irrational and totally bogus decisions that will go down in history as some of the worst policy making ever. The BBC politely sum it up.

If the government does reclassify, it would be rejecting the findings of the Advisory Council's panel of 23 drug experts, which has never happened before on a decision about drug classification.
-BBC: Police want cannabis reclassified

THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE
The Christian Institute are consistent with their agenda, using religious teachings as an excuse to support punitive treatment of drug users and the damning of harm reduction. Luckily for them, the ambiguity of the bible and a vast array of moral symbolism in religion allows them to pick and choose the parts that suit their agenda. This gives them great scope to promote their cause especially to conservatives and evangelists.

From a Christian perspective, harm reduction greases the tracks of sin.
-The Christian Institute: What we believe - Harm reduction approaches are un-Christian

Like all organisations of the religious right, they hate drugs and abstinence is king. They make several references to drug use on their website in the What We Believe section and even include Harm Reduction as a major topic.

This philosophy is superficially appealing because it has a desirable goal – the reduction of harm. Many people have been taken in by this profoundly naïve philosophy. But by opposing restraint, ‘harm reduction’ actually increases the number of people involved in a harmful activity rather than reducing it.

The aims of The Christian Institute aren’t about helping addicts or finding a realistic solution. Their selective pickings from the bible and broad moral topics are merely disingenuous attempts to push conservative values and really have nothing to do with the goodwill of a loving god.

The Bible bluntly teaches that drunkenness is wrong: “Do not get drunk on wine” (Ephesians 5:18). Intoxication and loss of control are intrinsic to taking drugs.


Intoxication is also wrong because of escapism. People cannot solve their problems by running away from them. Down the ages Christians have been at the forefront of battling against the epidemic of public drunkenness and the personal tragedy of alcoholism. Now Christians must take a stand as it becomes ever more fashionable to argue for the legalisation of all drugs.
-The Christian Institute: What we believe - Taking Drugs is Wrong

I am sure a munificent Jesus would be cringing at the idea of a profit based institution using his name to alienate people. It seems this brand of religion is void of the original Christian values and more interested in becoming powerful, political and rich.

The Christian Institute exists for "the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom" and "the advancement of education". The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK. We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.
-The Christian Institute website - Who we are

Did They Really Say That? Part 3 - The Religious Right

This is the third and final part in the series that puts the spotlight on some of the most remarkable comments aimed at brutalising drug policy in Australia.

Drug addiction is a sin
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Maybe we need to clear up the two arguments from religious groups. The first argument is that religion is meant to be compassionate and based on loving your fellow human regardless of their actions. Ideals like “love thy neighbour”, “turn the other cheek” or “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” are the core of a better world. The teachings of Jesus are mostly taken into account as practical methods for living a more Christian life. To these Christians, drug addicts need help via practical and compassionate treatment that maintain their dignity as people and to keep them safe. They are mostly supporters of harm minimisation and consider the problem a medical issue.

At the other end is the religious right who have reshaped Christianity to suit the modern evangelist or moral crusader. The focus is self improvement, conservative ideology and a return to the 1950s style, nuclear family. There is no room for druggies, gays and liberals. This is a new era of born again Christians who are active in politics, social commentary and government lobbying. In their quest to make the world more Christian like, religious fundamentals like humility and benevolence are overlooked. Fundraisers for the poor are replaced with large venue religotainment where you can experience on stage miracles like faith healing, participate in pray-a-longs for a better life and enjoy words of wisdom. The donation plate is passed around constantly and sales of DVDs, books etc. raise plenty of money for the church involved but how much of it goes to charitable purposes is debatable. Flamboyant and wealthy pastors are not questioned about amassing small fortunes or inciting hatred against non Christians but are looked up to as the strong, warriors of God. Muslims are evil and atheists are soulless. Programs for helping the community are replaced with self improvement classes for managing your money or losing weight and it is no longer necessary to keep your faith private. These Christians have joined the culture wars and they’re in it to win. In contrast to the first mentioned Christians, drug addicts need discipline and tough love. To help with their obdurate cause, they embrace a Zero Tolerance policy with tough police action. In their quest for a drug free world, abstinence is king and Harm Minimisation perverts the weak. Just like the Catholic Church’s view on condoms, adhering to their interpreted message from God is more important than actually saving lives.

"Christ came to make people whole, yet the total abstinence message is the truth that some Christians do not want to hear!"
-Graeme Rule. Director - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

The onset of evangelism in Australia has seen a new breed of political active Christians in the area of illicit drugs. Like all extremists, the religious right make some extraordinary comments combining the rejection of medical knowledge, cherry picked junk science, religion and moral panic. This gives them enormous scope to basically say what they want under the cover of religion and morality.

By offering addicts clean syringes, injecting rooms and alternative legal drugs, which maintain self centered and destructive behaviors for addicts, is part of the current nihilistic and consumer culture, which is opposed to Christian principles.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

Harm Minimisation
The line between Christian principles and conservative values are becoming increasingly blurred and we are seeing a cosy relationship between the religious right, politicians and the MSM. The big loser is society and the people they are suppose to be helping. The current policy of Harm Minimisation is projected by the religious right as unchristian, immoral and a failure although it is heralded by the experts as the best solution we currently have. Incidentally, Harm Minimisation is not properly implemented yet and is still biased towards law and order. Disapproval of Harm Minimisation means that science, reality and facts are the enemies of the religious right. For example, a quote from evangelist, Bill Mulleunberg states that Harm Prevention is the only proven drug policy. This is scientifically wrong, unworkable in reality and not a fact but a lie.

The question is, how many more people have to die before we reject the foolishness of these harm minimisation advocates, and their mistaken belief that illicit drug use is just a health issue, and not also a criminal justice issue?
Instead of seeking harm prevention - the only proven drug policy - and a zero tolerance approach to drug use, they recklessly continue pushing the line that people will always take drugs, so we must try to make it “safer” when they do. This is not only a counsel of surrender, but it is costing people their lives.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

In an attempt to discredit Harm Minimisation, there have been some cracker comments that just completely ignore the facts. By cherry picking research, they can produce “sound byte” statements that might be effective in the media but are only disingenuous attempts to trick the public.

It is clear that stricter laws reduce drug experimentation
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

While much of the western world is entrenched in basic Harm Minimisation programs, other countries such as Sweden and the US are used as examples of where Zero Tolerance is working. The problem is that it’s not true. The US has more people in jail than any other country, spends $69 billion per year addressing their problem yet has the highest drug use rate on the planet. You wouldn’t think this is true considering some of the bizarre statements from the religious right.

Given that the US is making better headway than Australia, in both binge drinking and illicit drug use among its young people, we should be looking more closely at what is working there
-Jo Baxter. Executive Officer - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

I always thought that lying was considered a sin and not part of Christian values but the religious right include it in their arsenal of propaganda weapons to fight Harm Minimisation.

Free needle programs have not stopped the spread of deadly, incurable disease. Hepatitis C infection is soaring among Australian drug users. Free needles encourage more drug use, just as free injecting rooms would do. Young people assume that heroin cannot be such a dangerous drug if State governments distribute free needles to inject it, provide legal injecting rooms and support heroin trials to supply free heroin to addicts.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

The lengths they go to trying to discredit Harm Minimisation is incredible. Ex magistrate and DFA member, Craig Thompson is often seen as the credible face of Drug Free Australia (DFA) but if you read what he says carefully, you might be fooled into thinking it’s actually satire laced with juicy conspiracy theories.

Needles to addicts, marijuana as medicine, industrial hemp, responsible drug use education, and softening drug law enforcement are "harm reduction” policies.  Isn't "harm reduction" really the old failed "responsible use" policy that got us into all this trouble in the first place?   It does not seek to "prevent" harm, or to "cure" harm.  It seeks to "reduce" harm – to the user and dealer – at the expense of society.
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

or

What is the force behind "harm reduction?" . . .   Could it be power, politics and money?
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

and

The new "harm minimisation" doctrine claims that drug abstinence is not possible and "safe use" is the way to go.
-Festival of Light article

The main targets for opposing Harm Minimisation strategies are needle exchanges and the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). Clearly a success, there has been many attempts to find a loophole for raising controversy. My favourite is from Gary Christian:

High overdose rates at the centre were due to drug users experimenting with higher doses, knowing nurses would be on hand to help them
-Gary Christian. Honorary Secretary - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

I laughed for about an hour when I first read this. Apparently an MSIC client admitted he did this but believe me when I tell you, overdosing is not fun. This is the single most absurd theory I have ever heard. It did though bring to mind, our friends, The Festival of Light who made this comment about Gays some years back.

Ironically, in spite of these costly programs, the success of the very expensive multi-drug treatment for AIDS has weakened the motivation of homosexual men to practise "safe" sex.
-Festival of Light

Maybe not as exact as Gary’s claim but just as delightful was this from DACA inc.

Injecting rooms will allow evil to flourish and prosper as addicts buy drugs for use in the injecting rooms.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

DACA inc. (not a government council at all but a private corporation) also answered the biggest question, are drugs evil?

Drugs are evil
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

David Noffs, son of the late Rev Ted Noffs who founded the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, and developer of drug prevention programs in Australia and overseas, said this:

This (harm minimisation) approach to the drug problem became federal and state policy about 15 years ago. It (claims) drug use is inevitable and should somehow be managed. Is it any wonder that drug use has escalated among young people in Australia to the point where it is four times that of the US (and over five times that of Sweden)? In the Netherlands, a noted harm minimisation country, the drug problem is out of control. Why is it then that Australia persists with a drug policy that is a public health disaster? ...It is time to pull the plug!
-David Noffs, President Life Education Centers International, Founding President Drug Watch International

Somewhat confused about his statistics? You should be. The drug problem in the Netherlands is out of control? Drug use amongst the young in Australia is four times that of the US? - Pffft. These statements are simply lies which must raise concerns about the ethics of these so called "Christians". It is standard procedure to attack the Netherlands because of their cannabis cafes and liberal laws on prostitution. The US has lied about the Netherlands for years including one US Drug Czar saying “you can't walk down the street in Amsterdam without tripping over junkies." The most publicised lie was the statistical bungle by Clinton’s Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey who pointed out the Dutch had a much higher murder rate because of liberal drug policies. Of course he was wrong as McCaffrey had included attempted murders in the Dutch results which meant that the US had a 400% higher murder rate per capita.

The city of Amsterdam is awash with drugs and crime. Indeed, drug-related crime is four times the rate of the US. You can’t walk down a street of central Amsterdam without being accosted by drug pushers and addicts. I lost count of how many times our push bikes were stolen by the druggies to help support their habits. I don’t want that cesspool of crime, drugs and violence to be replicated here.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

The fact is, the Netherlands rate of cannabis use is fairly much in line with neighbouring European countries except in the younger age groups where it is lower. It is also much lower than Australia, the UK and the US. Hard drug use is lower than the European average and significantly lower than Australia, the UK and the US. Recent reports that the Dutch are reversing their pragmatic approach to cannabis use have sent the anti-drug zealots into a frenzy. The “coffee houses” faced a few issues with the banning of tobacco smoking indoors, border towns attracting “drug tourists” from neighbouring countries and some premises being too close to schools. The final result though, is that not much has happened at all. The truth has never stopped the religious right before from creating fanciful stories.

In Holland, where marijuana is openly sold in “coffee houses,” drug addiction has become a massive problem - so much so that Dutch authorities are now having a rethink. They are now clamping down on a problem which is getting out of control. Acknowledging that drug-related offences and links with organised crime are on the rise, the Dutch Government will drastically cut the amount of cannabis that can be sold in the coffee houses, and more jail cells will be built.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and this

Is it a fact that Holland has one of the highest rates of marijuana use in the world because of its relaxed drug laws?
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

To the religious right, Harm Minimisation is not just about drugs but an undesirable lifestyle. The links between moral decay, crime, homosexuals, HIV/AIDS, broken families and drugs is a common theme for the religious right and they never miss an opportunity to tie in these evils together. For them, it’s simply a moral issue.

Obituary statistics reveal that the homosexual lifestyle is violence and accident prone. This may be partly a result of the high incidence of drug abuse. A survey of Australian male homosexuals published by the National Centre in HIV Social Research in 1998, found that "recreational drug use is high among homosexually active men by comparison with the general population. Particular drugs, especially the so-called `party drugs', are used by a sizable percentage of homosexually active men
-Homosexual parenting - the effect on children by Mrs Roslyn Phillips, BSc, DipEd and Dr David Phillips, BSc, PhD, ThA. (Australian Festival of Light )

and

At bottom, the drug problem is not so much a legal problem as a moral and cultural problem. To throw up our hands and give up our young people to the scourge of drugs is a sign of moral irresponsibility.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

It was then that I realised Peter was sneaking rock CDs into our home. They were Pantera, Metallica, 2PAC, Cyprus Hill, Korn, Eminem and many more - all with extremely violent lyrics. They promoted marijuana and other drug use, suicide, murder, racial hatred and violence, rape and rebellion against authority. Peter would hide the CDs in his bedroom. I found his hiding place, and confiscated them. I made him give them back to his mates.
-Festival of Light article - When love is not enough

The laughable logic often used by the religious right is similar to primary school standards. A prime example is the over zealous, Bill Mulleunberg who is often seen using comparisons that is similar to comparing apples with rotary engines.

They want to supply heroin to addicts. That’s about as helpful as supplying whiskey to alcoholics. This will simply create life-long addicts. We don’t want to help these people. We want to keep them strung out for life. Such a policy is morally bankrupt and socially disastrous.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Incredible! To see how irresponsible and inane such comments are, just substitute the word rape or murder for the phrase psychoactive substances. People will always rape (or run red lights, or avoid paying taxes, etc.). It is foolish to think we can fully eradicate the problem. So let’s try to minimise the whole problem. This is putting up the white flag of surrender, and condemning many to an early grave.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Nor should we abandon moral principles simply because in an imperfect world not everyone lives up to such ideals. It would be great to pass a law that banished all murder or alcohol-related road deaths. This we cannot do. But we nonetheless pass laws that deter murder and drink driving by making them illegal. To argue that such laws be abolished because they are frequently violated is foolish in the extreme.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

In the article Wodak is reported to have said that the legalised product would come in packets that “warn against its effects”. Hey, thanks for that. And when we sell the Uzis and other firearms, we will also have the appropriate warnings attached as well. How thoughtful. And when the child porn mags are freely available in the POs, we will fulfill our civic responsibilities by including a suitable warning.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

To say that we should legalise drug use because so many are violating the law is like saying since so many people are killing and raping, perhaps we should legalise these crimes as well.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

Right now criminals and corrupt police have a monopoly on selling illegal firearms, heroin, and a whole range of proscribed items.

But by the logic of Dr Wodak, it would be the sensible thing to legalise the sale of submachine guns, and have them sold through the post offices. Or allow heroin to be freely sold, allowing addicts to pick up a batch at the nearest PO. While we are at it, maybe some child pornography and some African elephant tusks could also be conveniently made available this way.

After all, we want to take these things out of hands of the crims, don’t we?
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

One of the funniest arguments is that Zero Tolerance is compassionate compared to Harm Minimisation. The religious right argue that sending drug users to jail is a form of intervention that saves them from the evils of continuing drug use. We all know prisons are drug free. The line between addiction and recreational use is removed and all drugs are lumped into one category ... evil.

It is time the dangerous and failed ideology of the harm minimisation crowd is replaced with some realism which is genuinely compassionate and responsible.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus gives witness to the way a Christian should behave towards those who are addicted, bringing them to full health with love and kindness even to the point of inconvenience and personal cost.
-Drug Advisory Council of Australia Inc.

David Noffs has the last word on Harm Minimisation.

"I think all the public health officials who have condoned needle exchange programs should be held accountable for those poor souls who trusted them and died anyway!"
-David Noffs, President Life Education Centers International, Founding President Drug Watch International

Cannabis

Only coma and death are left for the cannabis smoker
-Herschel Mills Baker. Director - Drug Free Australia (DFA)

Apart from Harm Minimisation, the most argued about topic is cannabis. If you thought the wacky quotes on Harm Minimisation from the religious right were funny, you’re in for a treat.

Psychosis can occur after only one or two joints. Sex organs and unborn babies can be damaged too
-Churchill Fellow and former teacher Mrs Elaine Walters

Recently, some sections of the religious right have attempted to use science as a tool to bolster their support. It is the very weapon that has been used against them to squash their silly, non scientific moral based arguments. The problem is that science is about the truth and no amount of cherry picking data or junk science can change the facts. It’s probably not surprising considering the religious right cited science as the foundation of Intelligent Design(creationism) in their attempt to undermine evolution. Suddenly there were regular reports of cannabis causing everything from psychosis to shrinking brains. Statistical witch hunts and junk science became media headlines and fuel for a new wave of anti-cannabis crusaders.

An adolescent who uses marijuana goes to his doctor with symptoms of depression, and is prescribed medication. A few days later, he dies. It is assumed to be a case of youth suicide by overdose - the cause of death is found to be very high levels of anti-depressant medication. But he took his medicine exactly as prescribed. The combination of marijuana plus the medication killed him.
Dr John Anderson. Psycho-Physiologist. Speaking at a drug forum in Sydney on 19 June, 1999 commissioned by Brian Watters to counter previous and future drug forums that opposed his own personal views.

Whether their research was right or not, the religious right were prepared to make some remarkable claims.

Since cannabis use is shown to be even more dangerous than tobacco use, for example, that should be a strong part of why the believer should just say no, instead of buying into the legalisation crowd’s agenda.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

You simply are in denial about the 10,000 plus studies on the overwhelming harm caused by cannabis. The evidence alone should settle the matter here, not some libertarian ideology.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Even the oldest argument of them all, that cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs was re-risen from the dead after being disproved long ago.

...They start with alcohol and marijuana, but most of them end up on cocaine and heroin. I have seen 18 year old girls and by the time they are 19 they are like a spinned out washing machine...
-(Festival of Light article) Linda Coyle, the Perth madam who left the prostitution trade and became a Christian in 1997.

and

Those of us who have worked in the field for many years know that marijuana is a 'gateway drug'
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

and

Lest it be argued that it is mainly hard drugs that are associated with criminal activities, bear in mind that almost all people enter the world of hard drugs via the door of “soft” ones like marijuana. This is the overwhelming testimony of those working with drug addicts.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

And as I argued in the linked article, marijuana is a gateway drug which leads to harder drugs. This is a near universal experience of marijuana users. It was certainly true of me and my friends, and is quite common. Very few grass users just stay on grass.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

The strangest “fact” to arise was the claim that today’s cannabis is much more potent and therefore more dangerous than previously. Apart from ignoring the potency of hash (cannabis resin) that was common in the 1960s to the 1990s, they overlook one major flaw in their argument. Better quality cannabis meant less intake which probably decreased the harms through smoking less. Would a drinker who normally has 6 bottles of beer in one evening still have 6 bottles of whisky if the beer was not available? Of course not, they would consume less to reach the required effect. Is it a coincidence that low tar cigarettes were attacked by these same people as a trick? They argued that a nicotine addicted person would adjust their intake to meet their nicotine requirements. In other words, they would smoke more light cigarettes or less heavy cigarettes to suit their normal intake needs. Amazingly, this was overlooked when it comes to marijuana because cannabis smokers are just mindless, crazy junkies who will take whatever is put before them. The potency issue remains one of the key arguments for the cannabis crusaders.

Marijuana is very potent and very dangerous stuff. It is a far cry from the mild stuff us hippies in the 60s used to toke on. It is many times more powerful, and extremely dangerous. It is much stronger because of higher THC levels (the “high” producing element of cannabis). With increased potency comes increased health risks.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

and

These reports indicate a disturbing level of misinformation about the dangers of cannabis among health personnel at the highest levels. Some of the misinformation may be due to the high level of marijuana experimentation by university students and others in the “swinging sixties”. Some of these former students may be professional researchers, counsellors and doctors these days, and may not realise that the “pot” they smoked in their younger days had perhaps only 10% of the THC content of the cannabis for sale in today’s market. They may also still be occasional users of the drug.
-Mrs Roslyn Phillips. Festival of Light

So what Roslyn Phillips has revealed is that those who took this very dangerous drug, cannabis when students, are all now professional researchers, counsellors and doctors etc. Oops. Thanks Roslyn for clearing up the consequences of casually smoking dope!

Fear is an underlying strategy of the religious right. Cooked up theories and propaganda hiding behind religion gives legitimacy to their attempts at tricking the public. Scare tactics are common practice for the anti-drug nutters but having God on your side somehow makes it okay.

Witness after witness mentioned SA's big marijuana problem since growing ten plants was "decriminalised" in 1987. Some MPs from other states were disbelieving when a parent said it seemed "every second house" in Adelaide grows "dope" in the backyard. However Ann Bressington (left) of DrugBeat testified that in her area, "when you walk down the street of a night, you can smell the marijuana in the air."

"I work with police here, and they tell me that 90% of drug-related crimes - including violent home invasions and break-ins - are linked to marijuana. Only 10% are heroin-related," Bressington said.
-Festival of Light article

and

All of this clearly points to the fact that cannabis should be considered at least as serious as other ‘hard’ drugs such as heroin or methamphetamines.
-Craig Thompson. Drug Free Australia (DFA)

God Said Drugs Are Bad

Heroin addiction is a fate worse then death
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

When it comes to 21st century medicine, the religious right are a mixed up lot. They are not afraid to take advantage of the many scientific advances unless it involves breaching their ideology. Women’s health, HIV/AIDS prevention, stem cell research and drug treatment are some issues that can be more important than people’s lives. It may just be that other people’s suffering is vastly different than it happening to themselves. It brings to mind the term, “collateral damage”. Surely those suffering aren’t that selfish that they can’t see the bigger plan?

The addicts in their iniquitous soul-destroying world of substance abuse don't understand the love and hope we have invested in them.
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Although the religious right often clash with science, they are not afraid to use their own special brand of research to prove their point. Like all good anti-drug moralists, they cherry pick their data to form an argument that washes well with an uninformed and emotional public. Harm Minimisation is a radical change to traditional treatments that have relied on years of public misinformation to appear appropriate. Luckily Harm Minimisation is very successful and slowly the public realise the benefits although groups like the religious right try their hardest to discredit it.

The drug lobby is playing a terrible hoax on the Australian people. In 1985 they pushed for misnamed `needle exchanges' - which are really needle giveaways. When heroin addicts inject and are `out of their minds', they dump their used needles wherever they happen to be - in parks or on the beach, where innocent people can receive deadly injuries.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

Some strategies include obvious lies.

The NSW government has now legalised possession of one gram of heroin - enough for 20 shots. Weak politicians have thus torpedoed the police campaign against drug dealers.
-Rev Fred Nile, MLC, of the Christian Democratic Party. NSW

Some strategies include bizarre statements.

If someone could prove to me that having supervised injecting rooms saves lives, I'd be the first to support them. But the evidence shows otherwise.
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

Some strategies include good old Christian values.

How do we achieve this? Through research, and service delivery to our valued clients. We aim for a holistic service that includes good medicine, counselling, Christian teaching, housing, 12 step recovery program and other possible support from local church community networks.
-Dr George O’Neil - Fresh Start Recovery

Some strategies include outrageous claims like alcohol prohibition was a success.

It [alcohol prohibition] was the most lawful period in US history
-Brian Watters. Salvation Army

and

Wodak also brings up the issue of Prohibition in America to justify this lunacy. Please allow me a few inconvenient truths here: During this period, consumption of alcohol declined substantially, as did the cirrhosis death rate for men (cut by two-thirds between 1911 and 1929), and arrests for public drunkenness dropped 50 per cent between 1919 and 1922.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Of course, the real agenda behind the anti-drug crusade from the religious right is Christian morality. Like most issues that irk them, society must take a back seat to their beliefs. By making drug use a moral issue, it gives them some control and a public voice including the ear of the government. Faith based programs are less successful than treatments based on Harm Minimisation which in the end, is hard to argue with. This is where God, morality and Christian values becomes essential to their argument.

And it still baffles me as to why any believer should seek to argue for the legalisation of illicit drugs. Why do believers want to go down that road? What biblical rationale is there for doing such things?
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Their message is simple - drugs are bad. People who take drugs are bad. They do not care about what’s best for addicts or if alcohol is far more dangerous than moderate drug use. It’s not the point. Drug use is associated with evil,

Our goal should be to deliver people from the oppression of the devil, not keep them enslaved to it.
[...]
The good news of the Kingdom of God is that people can be set free and given a new life. Injecting rooms do not do this. Thus they are neither Christian nor compassionate.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

Maybe drug users are possessed.

Any police officer will tell you that a person on drugs will be more likely to neglect a child, abuse a spouse or take a life. It’s not just that people do bad things to get drugs; drugs make them do bad thing.
-Bill Mulleunberg. CultureWatch

In the end, according to the religious right, drug users have a simple choice. Turn to God for salvation.

A lot of damaged women and men in Adelaide tonight, are taking drugs to hide their hurt. If they are listening, I have a message from God for them. He says He loves you very much. He wants to save you from all the mess and pain in your life.
-Mrs Roslyn Phillips. Festival of Light

RELATED ARTICLES:
Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media
Did They Really Say That? Part 2 - Politicians

For an in depth look at the religious right in Australia and their influence on drug policy, read the articles below from Firesnake.
Australias Religious Right: Part 1
Australias Religious Right: Part 2
Australias Religious Right: Part 3

Cannabis is a Hard Drug Too! - More DFA Deceit

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

CANNABIS is a Hard Drug Too! DFA Newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This brings up a very important point.

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

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

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

The facts are clear.

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

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

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

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

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