Colin Barnett
Friday, 19 February 2010
Bucket Head of the Year Awards - 2009
Colin Barnett
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Why We Can’t Trust A. Stoner
Andrew Stoner ... you’re a DICKHEAD!
Why is Andrew Stoner a dickhead, you ask? Well, Stoner is the latest Australian politician attempting to gain voter support by spreading lies and attacking the scientifically proven drug policy of Harm Minimisation. The outrage was triggered by a pamphlet from NSW Health - Drug Safety: Guide to a Better Night that was reportedly available to young people at “music retailers, clubs, libraries, TAFE bars, universities” etc. Hmm. Aren’t some of these places restricted to adults over 18 years old? When they say, “For God’s Sake, Won’t Someone Think Of The Children”, it must also mean the kids who illegally enter adult-only premises.
To put out a pamphlet that says Guide to a Better Night ... I think it's sending a message that to have a good night you ought to be taking drugsYes, he did actually say that. Stoner and others feel that giving warnings and safety advice to drug users/addicts somehow triggers kids to suddenly take up drugs or it sends the wrong message that you need drugs to have a good time. A far stretch by anyone’s imagination. The excitement was obviously having an effect on Stoner and he blurted out this beauty.
-NSW Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner
Clearly, the NSW Labor government has a philosophical approach that legal [sic] drugs are okay as long as you take them safely (but) we don't want anyone to take drugs.It wasn’t clear if Stoner was most upset about kids having access to the pamphlet or if it was a general swing at Harm Minimisation. I don’t think he actually knew himself and it only got worse when the anti-harm minimisation nutters joined the fight. First there was Brett Murray, the motivational speaker, author and everyone’s favourite youth inspirer in the lucrative Jesus circuit.
-NSW Nationals leader, Andrew Stoner
I think this is just a sheer sign of surrenderFollowed by our old friend, Darren “Maaate” Marton who gave this magical oration:
[...]
There's going to be people out there who commit pre-meditated murder - do we make sure that we have a little pamphlet saying `(ok,) but make sure that you do it in groups'?
-Brett Murray in the Sydney Morning Herald
Why isn't the government coming out with programs educating young people how to say no to drugs and also how to help their friends? Instead, they keep churning out this harm-minimisation philosophy at the expense of our kidsThe Sydney Morning Herald were so riveted, they misspelt Darren’s name. And that was it for Darren.
-No Way Campaign Foundation founder Darren Marton in the Sydney Morning Herald
So we have one guy comparing drug use to pre-meditated murder and another warning us that the evil drug policy of Harm Minimisation was costing us our kids. Some profound theories for us all to ponder.
All this hooha because a health safety pamphlet written for 18-29 year old drug users was found at places that young people might visit ... and other age groups as well. What was in this controversial pamphlet that had the NSW opposition apply for it under the FOI act? From various media articles, I found that it includes this:
-Tips for having a safe night
-Urges young people not to use drugs alone
-Advises to ignore friends who put pressure on you to take a drug when you know it doesn't suit you
-Advises young adults about finding the illegal substance that suits their personality type
-And other radical information for our young, delicate readers.
The Opposition yesterday slammed the brochure as a disgrace and families flagged a campaign to force the Government to toughen its anti-drugs messages to young peopleI want to know why you have to turn 18 to be a drug user/addict. I keep hearing that this information is not suitable for young people. But isn’t this the main flaw behind the anti-harm minimisation argument? - you can not deal with such a complex issue like drug use by slotting people into neat little boxes or using simple, one-size-fits-all policies. If this pamphlet is not available to a 16 or 17 year old, will they simply not take the drug they have just purchased? Is this the type of assumptions you make when you’re so used to regurgitating the, Just Say No myth? I’m sure many anti-drug warriors actually think this way and all the evidence in the world is not going to compete with the back-patting and political point scoring that currently exists.
-The Daily Telegraph
Acting Opposition leader Andrew Stoner called for the guide to be pulped, saying the harm minimisation message will not solve the problem of drug useI wonder if Stoner really understands what harm minimisation is when he makes such damning statements? Like many of the other dickhead politicians who recently embarrassed themselves, it appears to be a case of political opportunity mixed up with ignorance and personal beliefs. Jumping on the anti-drugs bandwagon might be a proven vote winner but increasingly so, you have to sell your soul to the scientifically challenged group known so fondly as the “Anti-Harm Minimisation Nutters”. That puts Stoner in the elite company of Fred Nile, Steven Fielding, Peter Debnam, Anne Bressington, Bronwyn Bishop, John Howard etc.
-The Daily Telegraph
Lucky him.
Call To Pulp NSW Government's 'Drugs Are OK' Guide
The Daily Telegraph/AAP
January 2010
A NSW Government brochure advising young adults about safe drug use should be pulped because it sends the wrong message, the state Opposition said.
The brochure Drug Safety: Guide to a Better Night offers tips for drug use and advises young adults about finding the illegal substance that "suits their personality type".
The Government has come under fire for making the pamphlet freely available to young people through outlets such as music retailers, clubs, libraries and universities, with some youth workers saying it "surrenders" in the war against drugs.
But NSW Health Minister Carmel Tebbutt has defended the guide, saying it has been distributed to an 18-29 age group with harm minimisation in mind.
"The Government's first position is that people shouldn't do drugs," she told Macquarie Radio.
Acting Opposition leader Andrew Stoner called for the guide to be pulped, saying the harm minimisation message will not solve the problem of drug use.
"Clearly the NSW Labor Government has a philosophical approach that legal drugs are OK as long as you take them safely (but) we don't want anyone to take drugs," Mr Stoner said.
"This ought to be pulped completely. This is sending a message that illegal drug use is OK.
"We ought to be putting our resources into ensuring kids stay off drugs and, for those who have actually become addicted, into helping to get off drugs."
If the Government does pulp the guide it would be the second time in two years it has been forced to take such drastic action.
In 2008, former health minister Reba Meagher ordered a drug guide aimed at year 9 and 10 students be destroyed because of community outrage over its similar harm minimisation approach.
Related Articles:
Accepting drug use does not mean condoning it - SMH
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Darren Marton - No Way!
I had some great feedback to the Bucket Head of the Year Awards including from several of the nominees. One award winner, Darren Marton (Anti-Drug Propagandist - Rising Star Award for 2008) left a few long comments which basically accused me of not being worthy of other addicts who had a much tougher time than me ... especially referring to himself. After pondering his last reply, I thought I should expand on some interesting points. Darren Marton’s No-Way Campaign appears very similar to the “Just Say No” school of thought where anyone can avoid drug addiction by being strong willed and simply saying no to drugs. This was made famous in the US via Nancy Regan’s “Just Say No’ campaign. Of course it was a huge flop but is still the corner stone of most anti-drug campaigns today. I would guess that most campaigns have good intentions but the usual scare tactics and moralising doesn’t seem to be very successful. The D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in the US is a classic example where no one bothered to examine it’s success and it was just accepted as the gold standard for schools. After some much needed analysis, it seems that apart from not lowering the rate of drug taking amongst students, it actual has the opposite effect. What shits me is the blind acceptance of the “Just Say No” strategy. Even though there is research indicating it’s ineffectiveness, many campaigners march on anyway ignoring the facts. More importantly, some of the more unscrupulous types try to trick the public into accepting this strategy as being highly successful and will discredit anyone who opposes them. Is Darren Marton one of these people? Unfortunately for him, it’s a double edged sword. Either he does know the facts and continues on with the charade or he doesn’t know the facts but he should. Either way. it’s a problem. So when he pulls one of the old anti-drug, propaganda stunts and asks me to provide a plan for heroin legalisation even though I have never supported it, it’s time for me to act. What can I do? Ignore it? Ring George Soros for campaign funds? Lobby the government? With so many options I decided to be brave and direct ... after washing the dishes and cleaning up the dog poo, I opted to write this article. Tough issues need tough action! I awarded Darren Marton the Anti-Drug Propagandist - Rising Star Award for 2008 so I expected some retaliation but when it’s just more of the very thing that got him the nomination in the first place, I will gladly play along. It isn’t very hard for I have several factors on my side ... the truth, evidence, facts, expert support, medical support, scientific support and common sense. Lastly and most importantly, this is my website so I can say what I want. Maybe it’s this fact that is changing attitudes because no longer do the MSM and the government have carte blanche on information. The MSM is not the only source of information anymore that has so much of the public believing anti-drug propaganda. Anyone is now able to find the facts in an instant which is opening up much needed debate on issues like drug policy.
January 7, 2009 Re: TERRY GOOD - SHOW ME THE PLAN !I know what you’re thinking but I have no idea either what “Terry Good” means
Special note: I am not affliated with Drugfree Australia nor am I affiliated with any other organisation to set the record straight Terry Good. I distanced myself from them a long time ago.That sounds ominous. Were they too hard core even for the winner of the Anti-Drug Propagandist - Rising Star Award for 2008 - Darren Marton? Interestingly, Darren’s No-Way Campaign website includes pictures of and endorsements from DFA members.
Terry Good, memoirs of a heroin addict’s dairy! I must confess I find it extremely difficult picturing Terry Good sitting in a holding cell with holes in his arms the size of key holes about to descend into heroin withdrawal. Hang on a minute - nah, but hang on, nah, not Terry Good, the professional addict. Think about it, a day in the life of an academic professional addict ; sourcing and scour ring for products to sell just to even feel normal, seven days a week, 365days of the year, year in and year out, decade to decade, no birthdays, no Christmas days. I’m not picturing it, can you??? Take a big pause my friends, ah, if only 1/4 of us addicts (junkies – that’s how he likes to refer to them) could have lived the life of a professional addict like Terry Good. All the while maintaining one's dignity with a home, a job, a car, the pets, not to mention the legitimate shopping once a week – ah Terry Good, if only just to shop legitimately for one day - even just to purchase a razor once without having to rip of a bar code. If only it were so easy. I never thought that going to jail or stealing was a prerequisite to be considered a “real addict”. Most of the addicts I have met are not homeless and many have jobs. Some are on the dole, some are professionals, some are criminals and some are tradespeople. Some live with mum and dad, some move between friends and some are married with children. Some are young and some are old. The only constant is the lack of guidelines on who becomes an addict.It seems Darren has a problem with anyone who didn’t fall as far as he did and like any self respecting, street tough, knockabout lad and footy player turned junkie, he rubbishs anyone who is educated or has not had to deal with life on the streets. The problem is he is wrong. I have been to jail, I have stolen and cheated, I have lived recklessly and I am not educated. My street days are in the past and my blog starts well after that. The irony of Darren’s assertions is that he had what many addicts don’t have - support from their family. When he received the the Pride of Australia Medal 2007 - Role Model, Darren dedicated his medal to his mother, Maureen Marton. She said, "I never gave up on him" which is good for Darren but someone cynical could say that he didn’t do it tough because he always had his family to fall back on. Of course this is ludicrous but so is saying that a heroin addict who functions adequately within society is somehow not a real junkie.
I think Terry Good’s mind has been open for far too long and it needs to be closed for renovations. He is obviously another academia educated beyond his intelligence.I am flattered. To be called “another academia educated beyond his intelligence”, pleases me greatly. You see, I left school when I was 15. It wasn’t until I was about 20 years old that I discovered work as a way out of a directionless existence. I worked my way up through the financial markets as a clerk and ended up being a money market dealer for one of the big banks. I then worked in various industries over the years until eventually I started my own business which was growing quite nicely including several employees. Then my wife died suddenly and I turned to heroin. The next 8 - 9 years were hell and included all the juicy bits that would make Darren proud. I got to achieve success in my career through hard work and determination, not because of my education. If that makes me sound ‘educated’, that’s a bonus. I find it bizarre that Darren Marton can criticise me for this. To pull myself out of a glut and try to make the best of a bad situation. To be fair to Darren, he didn’t read enough of my site to know my history but there also lies the problem. Darren’s side of the drug debate often don’t get all the facts and are prepared to make wild accusations to suit their argument and get their point across. Reading through Darren’s response, you will also see the contempt for research and facts that tear at his strategies and the mocking of academia and science as some sort of evil, reminiscent of the religious argument against evolution vs. creationism. I don’t doubt Darren’s motives but having gone to the DFA school of propaganda, I feel his mission might be somewhat askew.
All I can say is; SHOW ME THE PLAN TERRY GOOD!The rest of Darren’s reply is pointless. It is all based on the usual misconception that anyone pro-Harm Minimisation or anti-prohibition wants an open market for the sale of drugs. I have never once suggested that heroin should be sold freely to the public. I am opposed to that idea but Darren again assumes something without knowing the facts.
It’s all well and good to have all the answers there squire – but where’s the plan on how Terry Good is going to implement it all and save the lives of all the worlds junkies. I have been around long enough now to learn all the academia jargon Terry Good – document the deliverables, client centered approaches, and my favorite, EVIDENCE BASED OUTCOMES!!! Come on Terry, you can do it. You know the score, 96% of all us know that 69% of all evaluations are made up on the spot. You’ve got the upper hand my friend. Just smudge and fudge. Come on – you can do it.Like the argument many centuries ago that the earth was flat or the creationist dogma still going on today, science is ridiculed by those who are threatened by it. For example, the statement “96% of all us know that 69% of all evaluations are made up on the spot”. Funnily enough, it reminds me of another observation - 88% of percentages are made up. Darren’s brainwashing from DFA obscures the fact that his argument against Harm Minimisation is actually the argument used against his cohorts. They are constantly accused of referring to junk science using useless statistics in an effort to appear legitimate. Harm Minimisation supporters, on the other hand, base their arguments on evidence and well established research but when it doesn’t suit the anti-drug zealots, it magically becomes “academia jargon”.
My challenge to you Terry Good is! Can you please document for us, the public, a 2 to 5 year strategic plan with all of your aims and objectives on how you’re going to legalise and administer heroin please. Just post it on your website, come on, it’s not that hard. You’ve posted that many things on your web site most would think you wouldn't have trouble posting a letter to Santa by the looks of it, and Santa actually even replying to it.This is the first time I have been criticised for having too much content!
Who will administer the heroin TERRY GOOD? The government sector or the private sector? Who decides on the level of dose TERRY GOOD? Will it be the client's just like the methadone program? At what age will the criteria be set to for perspective uses to engage in heroin use TERRY GOOD? Come on TERRY GOOD – SHOW US THE PLAN. P.S If you were to accept the challenge to which I doubt, don’t let it take up to much of your time though mate. You have to work remember whilst all the time managing to keep your web site ticking over, which looks like to the average punter it would take probably 5 of Bill Gates best just to keep it ticking over for a week. Go figure!!!There are several references to the time I spend on this site and the amount of content being excessive. If I compare my site to other blogs that I often read, I have less content on average. There are millions of bloggers who have a lot more content than me which raises the issue of Darren’s ability to intake information. If my site is overdone with content, how the hell would he go reading a government enquiry or research papers? Maybe it’s because it has too many hard words and not enough pretty pictures or because Darren’s blog only had one article, 13 comments, included the word “mate” 14 times and lasted about 2 hours. More importantly it again raises the issue of being criticised for achieving something. I might understand if The Australian Heroin Diaries was accused of lacking substance or not being maintained adequately but to be criticised (wrongly) for having too much content is bizarre. Do I spend too much time writing? That’s debatable but you would have to include a million or so bloggers as well. I wonder if regularly talking to school kids and filling their heads with misinformation is a bigger waste of time?
P.S.S.TERRY Don’t forget to feed the pets. TERRY,GET OFF THE COMPUTER. Terry you’re neglecting the pets. GET OFF THE COMPUTER. NOW! And feed the pets.I don’t know what to make of this one. I think it’s humour like calling me “Terry Good”. Maybe it’s an in-joke between Darren and himself?
Darren MartonCorrect. You spelt your name right.