Politicisation of Science

One of the main problems with society is the political system. It was while I was watching an interview with John Howard many years ago that it struck me how politics had taken a new turn. Howard said in an interview that the most important issue in Australia was the liberal party winning the upcoming election and they needed to focus all their efforts on achieving that win. Although it’s probably true for most politicians, I had never publicly heard this before. It had always been Australia’s future or the like that was a precursor for winning an election, not simply the need to win. By being able to openly say this in public, is it any surprise that more and more fundamentals of society would become political fodder in the quest to win an election? Those days are gone where politicians needed to appear logical. No longer did they take directions from facts, public needs or science. Basic freedoms were replaced by national security and the politics of fear. Common sense was replaced with idealism and patriotism. Science and medicine were replaced with religion and so called ‘family values’. Howard went on as PM for 3 terms over 11 and a half years. One of his profound contributions to science was silencing NGOs and government research organisations that had conflicting views to the official government spin. Research and facts became secondary to government policy and those who dared release conflicting data were faced with losing government funding. This led to the rise of groups like Drug Free Australia (DFA) whose sole purpose was to push the government’s own agenda that would normally be criticised by proper research groups. DFA were supporters of the US model that wouldn’t allow federal funding for programs that conflicted with modern christian ideology like safe sex education and needle exchanges. With most opponents now silenced in Australia, Howard had the opportunity to completely remove conflicting science from drug policy and the next step was to produce his own “research” which came via the Bishop Report - “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Luckily Howard was booted from office and the Bishop Report was doomed to bottom of the rubbish bin. Scarily, Howard had came so close to achieving the unthinkable and nearly implemented a non medical solution to a medical problem based on politics and moral/religious ideology. In the US, healthcare is an example of how medicine has become so politicised that it’s actual purpose has been overlooked and instead has become a political hot potato about socialism vs. right wing ideology. But science/medicine has been heavily politicised in nearly every country - abortion, nuclear power, alternative energy, mental health, creationism in science class etc. The two prime examples that stand out are climate change and drug policy. Both issues have been taken out of the scientific arena by the right because a pragmatic solution might upset their corporate interests or encroach on their safe, pseudo religious ‘family values’ ideology. Taking advantage of an upcoming election, a group of renown professors in Canada decided that they should write a letter to the major political parties and voice their concern. The politicisation of science had cost millions of lives worldwide and was risking the future of our planet. But can a group of experts actually get through to the decision makers? The letter is a real eye opener when you look at the content and you may start to realise how backward mankind has slipped considering how far we have progress scientifically.

Dear Sirs and Madam: We are a group of concerned scientists writing to call for the end to the politicization of science and related due processes in Canada. Below we highlight some recent examples of the mistreatment of science in Canada: • The closing of the Office of the National Science Advisor 1 • The misrepresentation of climate change science 1, 2 • The muzzling of Environment Canada scientists 3 4 • The cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service 5 • The political appointments to the board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada 6 • The halting of the Prison Tattoo Pilot Study and the suppression of the results of this study 7 • The firing of the Head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 8 • The suppression and misrepresentation of research related to Vancouver’s Supervised Injection Site 9-11 The above represent blatant examples of instances when: • Systems developed to provide non-partisan scientific advice were undermined, interfered with, or dismantled for political reasons; • Science was interrupted, suppressed and distorted for political reasons; • Scientific uncertainty was manufactured in instances where none existed; • Reputable scientists were attacked because the results of their work were unpopular or inconsistent with the views of political parties; While science is not the only factor to be considered in political decision-making, ignoring and subverting science and scientific processes is unacceptable. In light of these concerns, we are calling on all political leaders to articulate how they will work to improve Canada’s track record with respect to the treatment of science and related due processes. Yours truly, Canadian Scientists Against the Politicization of Science Encl.: Name List of Signatories References: 1. Science in retreat. Nature 2008;451(7181):866. 2. Smith C. Climate scientist claims Stephen Harper's government has muzzled experts. The Georgia Straight 2008 September 25th, 2008. 3. Munro M. Environment Canada scientist told to toe the line. National Post 2008 January 31, 2008. 4. CBC News. Minister stops book talk by Environment Canada Scientist. 2006 April 6, 2006. 5. Reuters. Canada slashes spending on wildlife protection: CBC. 2007 September 19th, 2007. 6. Hebert PC, Attaran A. A plea for transparency in Canada's "new government". CMAJ 2007;176(5):601, 603. 7. Kondro W. Prison tattoo program wasn't given enough time. CMAJ 2007;176(3):307-8. 8. Curry B. Fired watchdog quits nuclear board. Globe and Mail 2008 September 23, 2008. 9. Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS. The Canadian government's treatment of scientific process and evidence: inside the evaluation of North America's first supervised injecting facility. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):220-5. 10. Wodak A. Going soft on evidence and due process: Canada adopts US style harm maximization. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):226-8; discussion 233-4. 11. Kerr T, Wood E. Misrepresentation of science undermines HIV prevention. CMAJ 2008;178(7):964. Sent to: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP Prime Minister of Canada The Honourable Stéphane Dion, PC, MP Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition Mr. Gilles Duceppe, MP Leader of the Bloc Québécois Mr. Jack Layton, MP Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada Ms. Elizabeth May Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Below is an article from Canadian Medicine. Canadian Medicine is the editors' news blog of Parkhurst Exchange, a monthly medical magazine based in Montreal, Canada.

Canadian researchers demand end to political interference Canadian Medicine Two can play at this game, it seems. Medical researchers and scientists upset by the "politicization of science" in Canada have decided to turn the tables by interjecting themselves into the political scene as the October 14 federal election draws near. A petition protesting the "recent mistreatment" of scientific research will be sent to all major federal political party leaders in the coming days, Canadian Medicine has learned. The petition was drafted by a group of doctors and researchers that has routinely butted heads with Stephen Harper's Conservative government over the last two and a half years: Julio Montaner (above), Thomas Kerr and Evan Wood. Dr Montaner has become an academic of worldwide renown as the recently appointed president of the International AIDS Society. The three men are all professors of medicine at the University of British Columbia, but they are best known for their roles at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which under their leadership has produced some of the world's top medical research on supervised-injection sites, focusing largely on the downtown Vancouver facility Insite. Insite has served as a flashpoint for the conflict between the Conservative government and scientists. Despite overwhelming evidence of Insite's benefits, the government withdrew funding and then fought a battle in court earlier this year to attempt to establish jurisdiction over the project so that it could shut it down. The attempt failed when a BC judge ruled that the federal government was not within its rights. Soon after that, Health Minister Tony Clement -- who asked the attorney general to appeal the BC decision -- went on the offensive, drawing considerable opposition from the medical community when he questioned the ethics of physicians who support supervised-injection. The conflict over Insite is not the only complaint the petition mentions. Others include: "the closing of the office of the National Science Advisor" "the misrepresentation of climate change science" "the muzzling of Environment Canada scientists" "the political appointments to the Board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada" "the cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service" "the halting of the Prison-based Tattoo Pilot Study" In a letter dated October 6, addressed to "friends and colleagues," Drs Montaner, Kerr and Wood write: In light of our concerns we have prepared a letter addressed to the leaders of the federal political parties and have asked them to make clear the action they are prepared to take to end the politicization of science in Canada. We are inviting you to become a signatory to this letter. We will send this letter to all major media outlets in the coming days.

John Herron, NGOs and Signs of Change

As the internet helps spread the truth about the damage caused from current drug policies worldwide, many people are changing their minds about the approach we take with the issue of drug use. Harm Minimisation is starting to become better understood and misconceptions about legalisation and encouraging drug use are fading. Bronwyn Bishop’s attempt last year at destroying Harm Minimisation is slowly slipping into the dark depths of John Howard’s undie draw. The heavily criticised report, “The Winnable War on Drugs” is barely mentioned now except that it was fundamentally flawed and offered nothing to society except pain, misery and a false sense of security. This was at the height of the Zero Tolerance push by John Howard and his moral crusaders (as opposed to Kevin Rudd’s moral crusaders). That dark era may well be behind us if Kevin Rudd follows through with his promise of evidence based policy. Some much needed changes have taken place since then. For example, NGOs are no longer threatened with funding withdrawal or losing their tax-deductable status for donations if they became critical of government policy.

In 1991, just five years before the Howard Government came to power, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs brought down a report in which it commented on the role of non-government groups. The Committee said: An integral part of the consultative and lobbying role of these organisations is to disagree with government policy where this is necessary in order to represent the interests of their constituents. Note that they said non-government organisations should ‘disagree’ with Government where necessary. Contrast this Parliamentary Committee statement with John Howard’s Menzies Lecture, delivered in 1996, the year he came to power. The lecture was entitled, ‘The Liberal Tradition: The Beliefs and Values Which Guide the Federal Government’. In it, Howard referred to the NGO sector as ‘single-issue groups’, ‘special interests’ and ‘elites’ and he promised that his government would be ‘owned by no special interests, defending no special privileges and accountable only to the Australian people’. [...] De-funding has shut down many voices, but it is only a small part of the picture. At the same time, forced amalgamations have silenced alternative views, purchaser-provider contracts bring NGOs closer to being an arm of Government and confidentiality clauses are explicit restraints upon freedom of expression. -Joan Staples Report - NGOs out in the Cold: Howard government policy towards NGOs University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series

NGO’s no longer have a clause in their contracts that prohibit them from speaking to the media or releasing any report before seeking the approval of the federal government.

Thirdly, confidentiality clauses appeared at the same time that purchaser-provider contracts became the norm. They now appear in some form in most contracts that NGOs have with the Federal Government. These clauses have requirements that the organisation not speak to the media without first obtaining the approval of the appropriate department or minister. Some appear to forbid any public activity. Apart from the direct censorship involved, voices are likely to be silenced, even if a media release is approved, because delay risks lack of relevance with the speed of media stories today. Even groups working on habitat rehabilitation and feeding the homeless are now finding that any relationship with Government results in confidentiality clauses being imposed on them.

It seems, one important organisation in particular has also changed, The Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD). Although the changes are small, there appears to be a move away from Howard’s Zero Tolerance. The ANCD was originally chaired by Brian Watters, who was hand picked by Howard for his like minded, black and white approach to drugs. Over the years, there have always been members like Watters who have no interest in HM or evidence based policies. Ann Bressington, Craig Thompson and currently Jo Baxter, who along with Watters are all members of Drug Free Australia (DFA). The one constant has been Secretariat, Mr Gino Vumbaca. Reading through the transcripts from Bronwyn Bishop enquiry, Gino Vumbaca was continually attacked by Bishop for stating the simple truth. Bishop desperately tried to tie HM with failure but Gino stood his ground. This is a man with principles. It seems that current chairman, Dr John Herron, is also changing since the Rudd government. Maybe the pressure to mislead the public is off since the change of government. Who knows? An opinion piece by Dr. Herron in The Australian last week is a clear sign that finally evidence based strategies are replacing the mumbo jumbo that for so long was called drug policy.

Battle Against Drugs Needs Realistic Approach Dr. John Herron The Australian - August 23, 2008 IN 1998, the United Nations held a general assembly special session on drugs and set 2008 as the target date to eliminate, or significantly reduce, the world's drug production and use. Well, here we are in 2008, and while we've certainly come a long way, drugs still remain a worldwide problem. The elimination of drugs is an ideal many would like to see achieved, but we need to approach drug issues in a realistic and pragmatic manner. Fortunately, the next UN initiative sees the potential to formulate realistic goals and some positive changes for the future, including to the drug control conventions which govern global drug control, and to which many countries (including Australia) are signatories. Why do we need to make changes to our global drug control efforts? To start with, the three drug control conventions currently have a heavy law enforcement focus. While this is a key aspect of any comprehensive drug control effort, law enforcement is just one of many areas that need to be engaged when tackling drug problems. Even the executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, has himself said that "tighter controls in one region, or on one product, produce a swelling of activity elsewhere. As a result of this balloon effect, the problem is displaced, but not solved." In addition, it is quite concerning to me and many others that human rights, and their protection, are only referred to once across all three drug control conventions. Frankly, this is not good enough, especially when considering that those with drug problems are often subjected to severe stigmatisation and discrimination in communities across the world. To put it simply, we have to update the conventions to reflect our most modern and effective approaches of tackling the world's drug problem. Both Australia and New Zealand have balanced and pragmatic drug policies compared with many other regions in the world. Why do we do this? Because it works: our national drug strategies are also among the few that are subjected to comprehensive evaluations, and as a result we have long had an evidence-based approach to formulating our drug strategies. This had led to declining levels of drug use and overdoses, and the maintenance of one of the lowest rates of HIV amongst injecting drug users. We have a global responsibility to share our knowledge and success with other countries and to learn from the approaches of other nations in areas they have done better. In our region, non-government organisations (NGOs) provide many services within the alcohol and other drug sector. Inevitably, NGOs are confronted with many challenges from being under-resourced and overworked -- which makes attracting and keeping staff a difficult task for many agencies. Despite this, or perhaps because of these circumstances, many NGOs often offer the most innovative treatment approaches. It has therefore been very unfortunate that NGOs and their invaluable experience has not been utilised more in important decisions made at the UN level on drug issues. This time, however, a historic achievement was made recently when the UN actively sought input from NGOs in a review on drug control since 1998. NGOs across the globe reflected on what has been achieved in the past 10 years and provided recommendations on how to improve and strengthen these conventions, but also for enhancing NGO involvement in drug policy at the government and UN level. In Australia, the Australian National Council on Drugs worked with our colleagues at the New Zealand Drug Foundation to develop a report outlining the response from our region. Our regional report confirmed what many of us already knew: NGOs have much to offer including frontline experience, independent perspectives and innovative strategies for how to make our drug policy even more effective. I was very pleased and impressed that so many NGOs across the sector participated in this project in the face of such great time and resource limitations. Why did they do this? For the greater good. It is something which drives the NGOs in this sector, and they wanted the opportunity to influence global decision making and to promote the successes of our region in the hope of achieving better outcomes for others in the world. In July, regional representatives, including a delegation from Australia and New Zealand, met at an international forum in Vienna to propose new drug policy resolutions. This meeting concluded that equal weighting should be given to supply and demand reduction across the three drug control conventions. Furthermore, that each country should consider drug misuse primarily as a health issue. The importance of such resolutions should not be underestimated -- they have the potential to change the face of drug issues on a global scale. There seem to be so few opportunities to celebrate our success within the drug sector -- numerous challenges will always be apparent. However, what we have seen recently has been no small feat, and I congratulate the UN and most of all the NGOs, which gave their time and resources to participate. I now wait in anticipation for March next year when a high-level UN meeting of government delegates will meet to discuss the last 10 years of drug issues, including a very important NGO perspective. I urge them to adopt a realistic and ground-breaking approach to battling the world's drug problem, to ensure that the many victims of some current drug control strategies are helped to overcome problems rather than be further harmed. Dr John Herron is the chairman of the Australian National Council on Drugs

Did They Really Say That? Part 2 - Politicians

This is the second part in a 3 part series that puts the spotlight on some of the most remarkable comments aimed at brutalising drug policy in Australia.

Marijuana leads to homosexuality ... and therefore to AIDS

 - White House Drug Czar Carlton Turner, 1986

Do politicians make more silly remarks about drugs than journalists? That’s debatable but what is not up for discussion is the importance of their responsibility to tell the truth. 

Some of the media can interpret events and facts according their particular agenda but why are politicians more renown for this shady practice? Doesn’t this defeat the whole process of democracy and elections? Politicians either lying or not knowing the facts when talking about extremely important issues is not acceptable and to even compare them with journalists for being deceitful is worrying. For politicians, it seems that lying or being void of the facts is acceptable as long as it is in the interest of their party, no matter how important the issue is.

It's time for Morris Iemma and Labor to wake up and realise that protecting families from drugs is more important than securing preferences from the Greens.

[...]

Ice is a scourge on our society. It's killing young people, it's undermining a whole generation and yet you have the Greens Party proposing decriminalisation.

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

The Greens drug policy including decriminalisation that Peter Debnam is talking about, caused much controversy in the media but it was mainly the politicians that used it as ammunition. The policy itself was very thorough and based on evidence. The problem was that in an effort to ride the current wave of controversy, the major political parties didn’t fully study the Greens drug policy and made some wild accusations that in hindsight, don’t really reflect the Green’s policy at all.

The Greens are not just about the environment. They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation … to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff.

-John Howard. Prime Minister.

That's why we're setting up specialised services in our hospitals to deal with this. It is just an absurd and ridiculous and disgusting policy.

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

any MP who supported such a policy was completely out of touch with reality

-Morris Iemma. NSW Premier (In response to a proposal by The Greens to regulate drugs)

But I don’t think you can have at the core of it a message which says using heroin is ok. It is a deadly dangerous drug and I don’t think we want a party in Australia arguing that is actually is a good thing.

-Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

Any Member of Parliament who thinks we should de-criminalise drugs, including ‘Ice’, should take a good hard look at themselves, do the community a favour, and resign

-Peter Debnam. NSW Opposition Leader

One of the recent drug issues to cop a political hammering is a pure form of methamphetamine called ice. As we have heard over and over from the politicians and media is that ice is the most dangerous new drug to come out for a long time and it’s effecting us in epidemic proportions. The fact is, ice has been around for a long time and usage peaked many years ago. It’s only recently that we have seen reports of hospitals being ripped up by violent ice addicts and the epidemic levels of ice use but when use was highest, we hardly heard a peep. The effects of ice were largely over exaggerated but made a convenient issue for politicians to apply their “toughest on drugs” rhetoric.

Some of the stories of the way in which people have been terrorised and the way in which those who are addicted to ice lose all semblance of control and lapse into violent, uncontrolled, often homicidal rage and it is a frightening drug and we need a special emphasis.

-John Howard

Enough is enough, we must act before ice gets totally out of control as it can be purchased for $50

-Kevin Rudd

Ice had crept into the number one spot as Australia’s new problem drug. S.E. Asian crime organisations switched from heroin as their main export to ice but Howard and the AFP missed it. They were still trying to convince the public (and themselves) that they had stopped the heroin epidemic via the tough on drugs campaign ... which they hadn’t.

The tough-on-drugs campaigns have worked, it's just that ice has suddenly emerged in a way that the government wants to nip in the bud if it can

-Christopher Pyne 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Poor Chris. under his watch, ice was here. Yes, ice was indeed here, but the government was still spinning their other successes.

And as a result of our strategy hundreds of young Australians spent last Christmas with their parents who otherwise would have lost their lives or taken their lives as a result of heroin abuse

-John Howard. 2007. During the peak of the so called “ice epidemic”

Whilst on heroin, a quick quote from that flossy ex opposition leader, Alex Dolly Downer. A classic “no WMDs” comment when asked about the growing opium trade in Afghanistan since the war on terror.

There may be links to the Taliban but it is certainly not believed to be a major source of funding for the Taliban (it was).

-Alexander Downer

As opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was not going to be left behind in the race to fight the ice problem but his dilemma was whether he appeared to be tough on drugs whilst trying to follow evidence based policy. So he announced Labor’s new ice initiative.

Australia needs new ideas and fresh thinking when it comes to dealing with critical and continuing problems such as drugs and crime. 

But our response must be tough, targeted and evidence-based

-Kevin Rudd. Federal Opposition Leader

And the great plan was - 3 new initiatives: a ban on the importation of crack pipes to smoke ice, a ban on the sale to minors of pseudoephedrine and a ban on the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet. Very good Kevin, that should do it.

The real debate though was being “tough on drugs”. A recent development was that, instead of debating drug strategies, the politicians would try to score brownie points for being the toughest of the tough and try to brand their opposition as “soft on drugs”. Howard aligned himself with the Zero Tolerance cheer squad including Bronwyn Bishop, Ann Bressington, Christopher Pyne etc. and attacked Harm Minimisation including terminology like recreational / party drugs, state cannabis laws and anything else that was not Zero Tolerance.

As I have said previously concerned parents need to watch closely who opposes the measure that will send a clear message that drugs are not normal teenage behaviour, whether that be members of parliament educates or health care professionals it will be an indication of who is soft on drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Labor's preference deal with the Greens, who were soft on drugs, showed the ALP was not as strict on the issue

-John Howard

No-one can accuse the Iemma Government on being soft on drugs

-John Watkins. NSW Police Minister

No-one can accuse this Government of being soft on drugs

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

I wish the Greens wouldn’t be soft on drugs ... and national security

-Ron Boswell. Nationals Leader in The Senate

Dr. Alex Wodak gives his “soft on drugs” quote.

Howard can't lose on this. If he wins, he'll be wrapped in the Australian flag as protecting the youth of the future. If he loses, then the states get labelled 'soft on drugs'."

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Being tough on drugs never quite worked out though in the real world. The ice issue was got plenty of attention but what about other issues. Drugs in sport.

The NRL applies limited sanctions for the first position, and for the second, a more serious penalty. This accords precisely with the Government's approach - we don't give any quarter to anyone about drugs.

-Christopher Pyne. Congratulating the NRL on their 2 strike policy being an example of the government’s 1 strike policy

The Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC)

He (Mark Latham) wants to read books to kids when they're five and he wants to give them access to drug injecting rooms when he's 15.

-Tony Abbott. Health Minister

Politicians loved the MSIC. So much so, that when other states showed interest in the service, the federal government threatened to step in.

We would look at what the Commonwealth could do constitutionally. If there were any further proposals in Australia for heroin injecting rooms, we would look at what action we could take

-Chris Ellison. Federal Justice Minister

How about the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre AND ice

The Commonwealth Government does not support the heroin injecting room, and if it is becoming the ice injecting room we think that is the wrong approach

-Christopher Pyne

... how about everything ... including graffiti.

...social issues that are all too often underpinned by substance abuse, such as youth suicide; teenage pregnancy; abortion; unemployment; welfare dependency; poor school retention rates; family breakdown; child abuse, neglect and abandonment; domestic violence; prostitution; crime; road rage; road fatalities; and even graffiti, believe it or not.

-Ann Bressington

... and think of the children

We do not hearabout how many babies are born addicted in this country. Now he was not just a heroin baby; he was a methamphetamine baby, a methadone baby, a dope baby, a pill baby. God knows how he turned out normal.

-Ann Bressington

Ah, Ann Bressington ... Chris Pyne with a bogan haircut. Chris Pyne and Ann Bressington are birds of a feather. Both are from S.A., both with strong views against drugs, both with out a shred of credibility and both wanting to ban drug paraphernalia. What is Pyne speak for “ban the bong”?

I'm certainly concerned about the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances

-Christopher Pyne

This was par for the course. If they couldn’t stop people from using drugs, they were going to make it hard for them. It didn’t matter if it actually stopped drug use or not as long as there was a sound bite to go with it.

Imposing a ban on the sale of drug paraphernalia not only sends the message that drugs are socially unacceptable, but it makes it more difficult for first-time drug users to experiment with illicit substances.

-Christopher Pyne

First time drug users of course didn’t give a shit about whether they had a bong or not, they could just whip one up at home with their neighbours garden house and a orange juice container. 

Ann had a different reason why the proliferation of apparatus for the use of illicit substances was wrong. It was for their own good because they didn’t really enjoy it.

... in her 11 years of experience she has not met one drug user that has not had underlying emotional issues, and this is why they use drugs, to avoid dealing with those issues. People who know how to enjoy themselves don’t use drugs.

-Ann Bressington

Arh, Bressington logic. That explains why the millions who have used drugs, don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

With all this tough on drugs talk and each politician trying to get one up on the other, it was bound to happen. Yep, fighting amongst themselves was inevitable.

The Labor party room is divided in its attitudes to drugs. Duncan Kerr, a member of Mr Rudd's frontbench, is the convenor of the Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform. This group supports decriminalisation and harm-reduction policies ahead of a tough, no-nonsense approach

-Christopher Pyne

I don't want to name those members but sometimes you have thoughts particularly if they are campaigning to legalise marijuana, cannabis and they think it's a harmless drug

I think the deduction could be, if that's their view, that they are using it themselves.

-Fred Nile. Politician - Christian Democrat

All health professionals and law-enforcement agencies are horrified by the impact of ice on our community, and here you see the State Government condoning - in fact, promoting - the use of ice

-Peter Debnam. NSW Politician. Alarmed that addicts were allowed to inject ice in the MSIC centre

What about the politicians nightmare, cannabis? The issue of personal use being decriminalised has seen several states reduce the penalties for cannabis possession to on-the-spot fines or similar. Moving towards a more rational approach on cannabis is long overdue but the previous government had other ideas. Alcohol was fine and received very little attention but a drug that causes a tiny percentage of problems in comparison was not. 

We have to treat it(cannabis) as an illicit drug as dangerous as heroin, amphetamines or cocaine

-Christopher Pyne

Even though alcohol causes 100 times more damage than cannabis, the Howard government just couldn’t take the focus off grass. The National Cannabis Strategy was released, portraying marijuana as a dangerous, evil drug when the National Alcohol Strategy had this to say:

Alcohol plays an important role in the Australian economy. It generates substantial employment, retail activity, export income and tax revenue. Alcohol also has an important social role...

Personally, I like this quote about alcohol:

Woman: "Sir, you are drunk." 

Winston Churchill: "Indeed, madam, and you are ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober."

We know that governments like to take credit whenever there is a dip in drug use statistics, but when those statistics aren’t so flattering, why try and explain it away, just make up your own results. This classic quote is from Christopher Pyne, answering criticism about research into a national anti-drug advertising campaign that found Australians already know the dangers and it was not actually stopping people from using drugs

It confirms research (it didn’t) that the Government's done, which shows that younger people, in particular, are becoming very well aware of the harmful effects of cannabis and other illicit drugs on their mental state -Christopher Pyne

Yes, it’s true, he did say this.

It seems obvious now that tough drug policies, especially Zero Tolerance is the way to go if you want to be a successful politician. The problem is that Harm Minimisation is Australia’s official drug policy but it’s probably best not to let the public in on that. HM underlies all the success but ZT is the political profile that gets votes. 

They are evil, all of them, and there should be an uncompromising social condemnation of drugs. Why can't we have the same attitude towards drugs that a large section of the community has developed towards tobacco?

-John Howard

Well for the life of me I can't see why we shouldn't have a completely zero tolerance, an uncompromising approach to illicit drug taking

-John Howard

The first and most important thing governments have got to do is communicate a message of unconditional hostility to the use of illicit drug

-John Howard

If only it was that simple. You see, Zero Tolerance doesn’t work and never has. Basically it’s prohibition but puts users in the same class as the big dealers and manufacturers. But the criminals at the top are very hard to catch, so rounding up users becomes the strategy to show success. The larger the drug problem grows, the more that easy pickings like users and small time dealers are targeted. It’s known as “drugs on the table” or the “numbers game”. It doesn’t help anyone but as the problem grows, the more the public want results so showing that the police are being tough on drugs is hailed as the answer. The problem being that the answer is the actual cause.

Zero Tolerance is the basis for the "War on Drugs". Bronwyn Bishop even named her infamous report, “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Is it really winnable?

There are naysayers who believe a global fight against illegal drugs is unwinnable. I say emphatically they are wrong. Our slogan for the Special Session is "A Drug Free World - We Can Do It!" The United Nations and the International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) will help lead the way. - Towards a drug-free world by 2008 - we can do it…

-Pino Arlacchi. 1998. United Nations Under-Secretary-General

“We can do it” ... we didn’t. Not only didn’t we reach the goal of a drug free world, drug use increased. Those zany, crazy UN people.

Prohibition has been proven not to work for both drugs and alcohol. Funnily enough, we always refer to alcohol prohibition as a huge failure but it is minor in comparison to the failure of drug prohibition. This is what one of the greatest minds ever known had to say about prohibition.

The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.

-Albert Einstein

John Howard was optimistic though.

We are making progress in the war against drugs, but we have a long way to go

-John Howard

There was one positive though according to US Republican and political commentator, P.J. O'Rourke .

Drugs have taught an entire generation of American kids the metric system.

-P.J. O'Rourke

So who is right? Howard? Rudd? Pyne? Roxon? Which policy is best for Australia? Harm Minimisation? Zero Tolerance. John Howard never really knew what the official drug policy was for Australia and always said we have to be tough on drugs including users. Does Rudd support ZT or does he support evidence based policy? Well that’s hard to tell because there has been no official drug policy from Labor since they took office. Let’s see what the Rudd and Howard governments have said previously. BTW, Harm Minimisation is still the official drug policy since 1985.

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse.

Nicola Roxon. ALP - Opposition Health Minister

We will never adopt a harm minimisation strategy; we will always maintain a zero tolerance approach.

-John Howard

We're judgemental when it comes to the undesirability of starting drug taking in the first place. We shouldn't be judgmental about people who have become addicted. We should be helpful towards them, we should offer them support, we should offer them rehabilitation and we should offer them comfort and affection.

-John Howard

Our general approach when it comes to drugs policy is one of zero tolerance

-Kevin Rudd. Opposition Leader.

I believe in evidence-based policy

-Kevin Rudd. Prime Minister

And finally we turn to Christopher Pyne for the final word on the complex issue of drug policy in Australia.

We firstly have to make people understand that using drugs is wrong, it's bad for them, it's bad for the general society because of all the problems that it causes.

-Christopher Pyne

Yes, again, he did say this.

So there we have it, evidence versus politics. It might be of interest to note that recently, nearly every credible report commissioned by a government into a strategy for making progress on the drug problem has been completely ignored by the government itself. Our politicians cannot defend themselves as not having adequate information on alternative policies or not knowing the damage that current strategies are having on society. The quotes I have presented might be humorous or even absurd but politicians, of all people, should be taking this subject seriously. Yes, we hear it all the time now, that this subject or that subject is above politics but illicit drugs are the second largest industry on the planet. Larger than oil or legal drugs and only out shadowed by weapons/miltary spending. It is responsible for much of the world’s crime and divides communities more than any other subject except maybe religion. The biggest issue though, is that the above issues which are man made and preventable keep getting documented and ignored by politicians. That’s truly shameful.

In thoughtful circles, the debate is over, harm reduction wins. 

Now the task is to get this through the political maze

-Dr. Alex Wodak

Previous: Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media

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