The Propaganda Files - The Faces of Meth

The Facts: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) Does Not Work

Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use

--D. Mark Anderson: UW doctoral student in economics.

It is probably one of the most famous anti-drug campaigns in the US. The The Montana Meth Project or as it commonly known, The Faces of Meth was so popular in Montana that several states including Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and Georgia, took it up. It’s success was impressive and it fitted in with the usual scare campaigns that make politicians and parents so happy. The problem was that no one outside the organisation had actually studied it’s so called success. And when someone did, the MMP’s results fell well short of their grandeur claims of success.

---

Organisation: Montana Meth Project

Campaign: Faces of Meth

When: 2004 -

Propaganda: 6/10

Laugh Out Loud Rating: 7/10

---

You have to give some credit to an organisation that plasters billboards all over the US showing scabby, deteriorating faces in an attempt to sell something. Granted, it wasn’t perfume or a yummy hamburger but still, a risky marketing strategy. But this was an anti-drug campaign, where organisations compete to bring us the nastiest, most confronting images possible. The search for an effective message to reduce risky drug use isn’t the goal here. This is the world of the anti-drug nuttier where lies, moral imperatives and exaggerated scenarios win out over facts and reality. 

The bottom line: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) does not work. The powerful images of what too much meth can do to you have taken away the need to analyse the actually results. Like most scare campaigns, confronting images are automatically credited as being effective. The truth is, scare campaigns about drugs have never worked but after 70 years of Reefer Madness and showing the extreme circumstances of chronic drug abuse, they still don’t. They might help parents and the public feel like something is being done. They might portray a proactive police force or vigilant politician. They might even deter a drug user for a short while. But in the end, it’s the facts that count and the reality that the US public has been played by the powerful anti-drug lobby.

Montana Meth Project Didn't Reduce Use, Study Finds

Stop The Drug War (Issue #650)

by Phillip Smith

September 2010 

In 2005, Montana had one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the country, and businessman Thomas Siebel responded with the Montana Meth Project, an anti-meth campaign relying on graphic advertisements feature users' bodies decaying, teen girls prostituting themselves for meth, teens committing violent crimes to support their habits, and groups of young meth users allowing their friends to die.

The project has been widely touted as reducing meth use rates in Montana, and the Montana Meth Project makes similar claims on its results page. Based on claimed results in Montana, similar programs have gotten underway in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, Hawaii and, this past March, Georgia.

But a new study from the University of Washington published in this month's issue of the Journal of Health Economics casts doubt on the project's claim to have influenced meth use rates. The rate of meth use in Montana was already declining by the time the Montana Meth Project got underway, the study found.

"Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use," said study author D. Mark Anderson, a UW doctoral student in economics.

Anderson said the project had not been empirically and rigorously scrutinized until his study. Using data from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Anderson compared meth use rates to rates nationwide and in nearby states. Using demographically similar Wyoming and North Dakota, which undertook no anti-meth project programs, as control cases, Anderson showed that in all three states, meth use declined gradually between 1999 and 2009.

Anderson also scrutinized drug treatment admission reports from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and found that the Montana Meth Project had no measurable effect on meth use among young Montanans. His findings suggested that other factors, such as law enforcement crackdowns prior to 2005 or increasing knowledge of the ill-effects of meth use, were more likely to have led to declining levels of meth use.

"Perhaps word got around on the street, long before the campaign was adopted, that meth is devastating," Anderson said. "Future research, perhaps of meth projects in the other states, should determine whether factors that preceded the campaigns contributed to decreases in usage."

Huge Drug Busts - Are They Really Worth It?

A cold day for some in Melbourne

You have probably heard about the massive drug bust that netted a major heroin distribution syndicate in Melbourne this week. Although, the Australian Crime Commission and the Victorian Police Force are obviously ecstatic about their victory, what does it actually mean in the real world, away from the congratulatory media and smirking politicians?

I can't say the drought is over. What I can say is that heroin remains a problem for the Australian community. And that's certainly focused Australian law enforcement and the ACC in particular on targeting heroin because it creates such harm for the community

--Richard Grant - The Australian Crime Commission Manager Of Target Development And Intervention 

It would be hard to find any argument from the public against the police removing millions of dollars worth of heroin from the streets and any attempt would most likely be met with sheer disbelief or even some anger. How do you explain any downside from this bust to an ignorant public who have been pumped with anti-drug propaganda for 40 years?

Busting drug dealers is a good thing. Catching the Mr. Bigs is even better. And removing kilograms of heroin from the streets is simply a no-brainer. But what if all this was not as simple as it looks? What if, busting drug dealers is not automatically a benefit to society? What if, breaking up huge heroin syndicates actually causes more problems and harm than if the busts never happened?

To find out why, we must establish a few facts first:

• Heroin is basically non-toxic and can be taken for decades with very little physical harm. Remember that heroin is the brand name for diacetylmorphine, a derivative of morphine that is used everyday in hospitals and for pain treatment. Diacetylmorphine, under the brand name Heroin, was originally made by Bayer as a cough suppressant and to treat colds, flu, pain and teething problems for children. It is still used in several countries for pain management or addiction treatment as well as recreationally with an estimated usage of over 20 million people aged 15–64.

• Heroin is highly addictive and withdrawal is as nasty as it comes.  When in withdrawal, addicts will do things they would never normally do. There are no boundaries in place for how far someone will go to relieve the pain of withdrawal and affects everyone regardless of their job, religion, wealth or position in society.

• Most heroin related deaths are from overdoses when a certain batch is stronger than what a user is accustomed to.

• Almost no crime is committed by someone high on heroin. It’s the opposite - addicts commit crime to buy their drugs when they’re not high.

• Most heroin dealers are user/dealers who buy a larger package, keep some for themselves and sell the rest. They never make excess profits.

• User/dealers usually choose to sell heroin to other addicts because it doesn’t hurt anyone else unlike the option of committing crimes like robberies, theft or hold-ups.

• Many heroin addicts are fully employed and pay for their drugs legitimately. Any interruption in their budget, may lead them to resort to crime.

• Addicts often stick with one dealer who they trust. The dealers also much prefer to deal with people they know. A good relationship with a dealer can sometimes lead to a credit arrangement for emergency situations removing the need to obtain extra cash by committing crime, pawning off goods or trying to borrow money. Going to an unknown dealer may result in being ripped off which creates panic and a need to obtain more money.

• When a dealer is out of heroin or in jail, his customers still need heroin everyday. Simply removing the heroin or dealer does not stop an addict needing to score.

Let’s run through the scenario of what happens after this latest bust.

Suddenly, there are dozens of user/dealers without supply. That means there are hundreds of addicts without supply. We are lead to believe that “a significant amount of harm that we've removed from the community” equates to hundreds of drug users being better off and society is somehow safer. In reality, the opposite happens. Addicts have to score and will not stop until they do. If their source is removed, their options are to find another dealer, buy diverted pharmaceuticals or get street methadone. 

Having to find a street dealer at short notice opens up the risk of being cheated or caught by police. When this happens, an addict has not only blown their hard-to-come-by cash but they are still without a fix for the day. By this time, withdrawals are taking their toll and desperation is setting in. Walking into a chemist with knife and asking for a handful of Oxys is becoming an option. Jumping someone at the local methadone dispensary for their takeaway doses is also on their mind. Paying extra for another addicts heroin may be a solution except they are already short of cash from being ripped off. Either way, crime is becoming almost inevitable. 

Another problem with having to find a new dealer at short notice is that the provided heroin might be much stronger than what the user is accustomed to. This usually causes an overdose and often death. Unlike the popular belief, upsetting the routine for an addict never turns out well without a treatment plan in place.

The underlying message is, less drugs on the street means less harm. This is merely a sales pitch from the government and police. Random drug busts, even major raids like operation “Sethra”, without a fall out plan is not only short sighted but dangerous. Addicts don’t magically become enlightened and seek treatment when faced with a sudden cut off of supply. They just become more desperate. And if there’s one thing that hasn’t sunk in, it’s the fact that desperate addicts going through withdrawal will go to extreme measures to stop the pain. It is almost beyond comprehension that we act surprised or want to toughen up drug laws when an addict commits a crime to feed their habit. After all, it is the cause for over 50% of all crime in Australia. Not acting on this knowledge but instead, trying to the scam public support by rolling out the popular "Tough on Drugs" rhetoric is reprehensible and indicates how irresponsible and self serving our law makers really are.

Contrary to what we have been told, not everyone is going to be affected by this big bust. I asked a heroin dealer I know if this bust will affect him. He simply shrugged and said with a poker face, “I just get it from someone else”. Knowing several sources obviously has it’s advantages. And here lies another problem. This other source has much lower quality heroin so the dealers customers will have to buy extra to satisfy their cravings or get used to less potency. Eventually the dealer will find a better supplier but his customers will now be at risk of overdosing on the stronger heroin. Luckily, the dealer I know warns his customers if the strength suddenly increases but I am certain not all dealers offer this service.

What is lost in all the excitement from busting up a multi-million dollar heroin syndicate is that so much money is to be made that another dozen or so suppliers are ready to step in. It will probably only take a week or so before it’s business as usual and not many people will notice any change in Melbourne’s heroin market. Those who will notice though are the families of users who have overdosed, resulting victims of crime and the welfare agencies who too often, have to clean up the whole mess.

Was it worth it? $40 million in assets, gold and cash is certainly worth a phone call to mum. The proceeds from this bust will fund various police agencies for a long time, which can only be a good thing. I wonder though if 10 months of investigation with 250 police from the Australian Crime Commission, the Victoria Police Drug Task Force, the police crime department and regional response units hasn’t shifted scarce and valuable resources away from investigations into truly harmful crimes like child pornography, human trafficking or violent gangs. If operation “Sethra” was about reeling in ill gotten gains from criminals then it has been a huge success. But if it was about reducing harm or keeping the community safe, then sadly, it was just another failure in the misguided and dangerous, “war on drugs”.

Drugs, Money, Gold And Houses Seized In Melbourne

ABC - World Today

Simon Lauder

August 2010

Listen

ELEANOR HALL: Officers from the Australian Crime Commission and the Victorian Police Force made pre-dawn raids this morning which they say busted a major drugs syndicate.

The officers seized tens of millions of dollars worth of property and arrested more than a dozen people who they say were importing heroin from South East Asia and selling it on the streets of Melbourne.

The raid occurred as evidence shows that more heroin has been making its way to Australian shores. 

In Melbourne, Simon Lauder reports.

SIMON LAUDER: The raids were launched in the early hours of this morning but police say they've been watching and waiting for 10 months. Detective Inspector John Potter is from the Victoria Police Drug Task Force. 

JOHN POTTER: Fourteen search warrants in Melbourne's north and inner west and as a result of that have arrested some 13 people at this stage.

SIMON LAUDER: Police say they seized millions of dollars worth of drugs, mainly heroin, and $2.5 million in cash.

They've also seized around $20 million worth of residential and commercial real estate, allegedly the proceeds of crime.

Most of those arrested so far are women. It'll be alleged they worked for a syndicate which was importing and selling commercial quantities of drugs. It's believed the syndicate has been working in Melbourne for a long time and Detective Inspector Potter says the heroin may have come from South-East Asia. 

JOHN POTTER: We're talking about a number of countries. It's no secret that a lot of heroin comes from Asia.

SIMON LAUDER: The Australian Crime Commission manager of target development and intervention Richard Grant says the best way to stop organised crime is to target the assets. 

RICHARD GRANT: So in addition to that we've got, seized about $2.5 million cash, a kilo of gold and probably about $4 million worth of heroin which represents about 57,000 hits of heroin. So that's a significant amount of harm that we've removed from the community.

SIMON LAUDER: And what activities was this syndicate involved in? Where was it getting its heroin and what was it doing with it?

RICHARD GRANT: Well don't want to say where it's getting it from. What I might say though is that they were a significant trafficker of heroin, probably in the sort of middle to upper level bracket. And the fact that we have restrained over $20 million worth of assets today is indicative of just how sophisticated this syndicate has been.

SIMON LAUDER: And was it just heroin or did you seize some other drugs as well?

RICHARD GRANT: There was some other drugs seized. 

And as you can appreciate this is an ongoing investigation and it's also the raids or the warrants are still being executed as we speak so we're still waiting for further advice.

SIMON LAUDER: Can you say anything about the methods for importing the heroin?

RICHARD GRANT: Probably not at this stage. As I said it's still an ongoing investigation. 

These are plugged into syndicates elsewhere and getting their heroin from those groups. They were trafficking to large sections of the community - no particularly sort of demographic that you could say that they've been trafficking to. 

But the fact that they've been quite a resilient organised crime group - it wasn't that long ago, a couple of months ago that we seized five blocks of heroin which is about $3 million of heroin and about $645,000 cash and this group didn't miss a heartbeat.

SIMON LAUDER: Do you believe this syndicate was the main source of street heroin in Melbourne?

RICHARD GRANT: I can't say that this group is a major supplier in Melbourne. What I can say though, it is a significant contributor to the heroin on the streets of Melbourne.

SIMON LAUDER: And were they operating nationally as well?

RICHARD GRANT: Primarily in Victoria.

SIMON LAUDER: Since 2005 I notice that the amount of heroin seized at Australian borders has been on the rise and domestic seizures have also gone up quite a lot lately quite dramatically. What does this tell us about the availability of heroin in Australia?

RICHARD GRANT: Heroin remains a significant problem for Australia. The Commonwealth Government has got a three-stage plan for dealing with illicit drugs that talks about supply, demand and harm reduction. 

The action that we've taken today will have a significant effect but heroin will remain a problem while there is a demand for heroin.

SIMON LAUDER: About a decade ago or less there was what we called a heroin drought in Australia. Do you have reason to believe now that that is well and truly over?

RICHARD GRANT: I can't say the drought is over. What I can say is that heroin remains a problem for the Australian community. And that's certainly focused Australian law enforcement and the ACC in particular on targeting heroin because it creates such harm for the community.

SIMON LAUDER: Victoria's Office of Public Prosecutions says the case represents the largest single proceeds of crime restraint ever made in Victorian criminal history.

ELEANOR HALL: Simon Lauder reporting.

Stop Repeating Yourselves ... You’re Wrong

How many times do we have to witness and ultimately pay for this ridiculous attempt to please an ignorant public, boofhead politicians and the moral police? Once again, at The Big Day Out, police caught only a small percentage of attendees with drugs while thousands got through. There were dozens of officers, sniffer hounds and public searches all meant to deter drugs from entering the festival. It happens all too often now with the costs mounting up and the shock value decreasing significantly.

Year after year we repeat the same warnings before the event starts, but every year there are still people who stupidly try to get past us and fail
-Superintendent Rod Smith

Why do the police keep doing the same thing, over and over, but expect a different result? According to many, Albert Einstein made a similar observation and claimed it is a sign of insanity. Repeating the same flawed strategy again and again but somehow expecting the latest result to miraculously be different. You get the drift here. The police keep giving out dire warnings that anyone bringing in drugs to a music festival like The Big Day Out, will be caught and dealt with harshly by the courts. Each year though, only a few people get caught. Most are given a caution while thousands simply bypass the sniffer dogs and continue on like the police never existed. This is repeated for each music festival in every state. Insanity? ... or just another fault with the prohibitionist model for dealing with drugs? It doesn’t take a genius like Einstein to work this out and in fact it didn’t. The cliché was actually coined by novelist, Rita Mae Brown.

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results
-Rita Mae Brown, Sudden Death (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68

Not only do the police re-enact the same old strategy but they try to turn it around and put it on the people who attend these festivals. This gets to the crux of the futile approach taken by our government on drug control. We are historically consumers of drugs and we are always going to partake especially young people at a music festival. Whether the constabulary are there or not, drugs are going to be smuggled in and unless every single person, including the staff, the musicians and the police themselves are stripped searched, there will be plenty to go around. That olden but golden observation becomes apparent once more - if we can’t stop drugs getting into prison, how are we going to stop drugs getting into ... the Sydney show grounds, the Melbourne show grounds etc.

A total of 381 people were arrested, with police laying 104 drug possession charges, 12 drug supply charges, six assault charges and one malicious damage charge. Police also issued nine cannabis cautions, ejected 11 drunk people and caught 18 people trying to jump the fence into the venue.
-(AAP) PerthNow

It’s becoming all too common for the police to join the chorus of crooked politicians and agenda driven anti-drug zealots pushing out fear, exaggerated harms and lies. Droning on about “no drug is a safe drug” or “we’re putting drug dealers and drug users on alert ... we will catch you!”, might keep those “crooked politicians and agenda driven anti-drug zealots” happy but it’s not really productive. Like so much of the typical anti-drug rhetoric from the media and politicians, messages from the police are often produced just to please converts of the drug war or exploitable parents who have already been paralysed with fear. Think about the hundreds of thousands who use ecstasy, speed, cannabis etc. when they go out or on special occasions. Most of them have never had a problem with their drug taking or even seen any lasting negative effect. They have undoubtedly seen booze cause some major upsets but rarely does the same happen with recreational drugs. In fact, I’d dare say it’s the opposite and they have an absolutely cracker of a night. These are the supposed targets of these anti-drug messages but with the constant stream of dire warnings never coming to fruition, the message fails to make an impact. The truth is, and it’s a hard truth ... recreational drugs are taken so often because they are enjoyable, exciting and exhilarating with very little downside. You don’t hear this mentioned very much.

There is this idea with some young people that taking drugs enhances their day out, in reality, they are putting their lives at risk by taking illegal drugs sold by people out to make a quick buck. They might think this is just an ecstasy pill, but as police members, too often we see the tragic effect of these foolish decisions.

They might think this is just an ecstasy pill, but as police members, too often we see the tragic effect of these foolish decisions.

Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a safe party drug.

[...]

No overdoses were recorded among the 10,500 people that attended the event
-Detective Inspector Mark Zervaas - (AAP) The HeraldSun

Yep, you read that right. After all the dire warnings, his last reported comment was, “No overdoses were recorded among the 10,500 people that attended the event”. And we wonder why these messages are over looked by the target audience as just more anti-drug babble.

Apart from being totally pointless, the attempt to stop drugs entering The Big Day Out raises a bigger issue. Why is such a dangerous drug like alcohol allowed to flow freely whilst so much effort is put into stopping safer drugs like cannabis, LSD and ecstasy? This elephant-in-the-room just keeps eluding us over and over as the anti-drug zealots come up with new, fanciful arguments over and over. Remember the constant grind about dope being a gateway drug? That took 40 years of repeated research proving it a myth. Then cannabis supposedly caused all sorts of madness including psychosis, schizophrenia and amotivational syndrome. After numerous studies, they too was finally narrowed down to effect only a tiny group of people with amotivational syndrome being a complete furfie. Since then, cannabis has been blamed for causing testicular cancer, lung cancer, making us sterile, changing personalities and being anti-social. They too are loosing out to science and research which means the anti-drug brigade will have to devise new symptoms of cannabis use to scare the public.

But it’s ecstasy(MDMA) that’s getting the fear treatment at the moment. It wasn’t too long ago that ecstasy was touted as the new drug scourge crippling society. Warnings of massive depression, holes in the brain as seen in CT scans and of course addiction ... all after even one pill. The hype was so intense that the anti-methadone campaign in the US, One Pill Can Kill was mistakenly taken up by anti-ecstasy groups, the police and local nutters.

Ecstasy was perfectly legal until it hit the dance scene in the US. The DEA in spectacular form, ignored a scientific court ruling and rushed through an emergency law to class it as a schedule I drug. This put an end to promising research into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other psychological problems. It seemed that too many young(and old) Americans were just having too much fun for the DEA. But it was a Newsweek article that put MDMA on the most feared list in the US. Newsweek cited flawed research that just one pill could create “holes” in the brain and they provided a CT scan to prove it. It was later revealed that the test subject monkeys had been injected with pure methamphetamine instead of MDMA and the hole in the brain scans really meant nothing. But the damage had been done. Much to the delight of anti-drug crusaders, ecstasy was now seen as a killer. It took over 2 decades of overseas research to eat away at the myths surrounding ecstasy and only now is the real truth coming out. Not addictive, very few deaths, very few problems, statistically safer than riding a horse.

Det-Supt Charlie Carver, of the Serious and Organised Crime Squad, said many seized ecstasy pills contained harmful chemicals such as chalk and washing powder.
-The Sunday Times 

The latest strategy by the anti-drug nutters is not aimed at MDMA itself but the contaminants that are mixed in by manufacturers to extend their product. You have probably read about ecstasy being be cut with glass, rat poison, cleaning agents, heroin etc. The reality is that ecstasy is now being cut more than ever but usually with other mind altering drugs like PMA, Mephedrone, caffeine and ketamine. As far as I know, the claims of glass, heroin and poisons being included in ecstasy pills are myths.

Ecstasy has never been cheaper or more dangerous in Perth, a major new study reveals.
 -The Sunday Times 

Ironically, it’s the drug laws themselves that present the most danger. An unregulated industry(prohibition) breeds crime and a black market where there is no age restrictions, health guidelines or quality control. To top it off, the federal and state governments won’t allow doctors to run pill testing booths at music festivals or raves. This leaves users at the mercy of criminals and what they decide goes in the mix. If you have a complaint, don’t ring The Office of Fair Trading or contact a consumer rights group. The illicit drug industry handles complaints in their own special way - usually with intimidation and violence.

If we look to the club scene in London for setting the trends here in Australia, we should be worried. As MDMA is becoming scarce in London, most ecstasy pills are being filled with steroids, caffeine and mephedrone, a drug we know very little about. This has caused the arrest rate for possession of MDMA to drop significantly in London over the last few year. From 1,197 in 2006 to 773 in 2008. 2009 is looking to be less than 500. This is not a case of drug manufacturers trying to extend their profits but because of a crack down on MDMA precursors by the authorities`. China is now the sole manufacturer of the main precursor for MDMA with exports coming from only 2 countries. They are all heavily regulated and monitored with less than 5 litres in total being sold in 2008 and 2009.

Our philosophy is that we don’t want people to die in order to learn a lesson
 -Students for Sensible Drug Policy

This might keep the AFP, DEA and other drug enforcement agencies happy but as usual, their mindless obsession and limited thinking is killing people. In other words, cracking down on the relatively safe drug MDMA, has caused a surge in PMA, mephedrone, BZP, GHB and other more harmful drugs. Why are anti-drug agencies and groups so inept with logic? They think that if you simply make it harder to get a certain drug then users will just stop taking all drugs? Or when a certain area is targeted by the police - drug users just don’t give up and the dealers quit to get legitimate jobs. The drug scene simply moves somewhere else. Haven’t they ever heard of the Balloon Effect? - squeeze one end and a bulge appears somewhere else.


Insanity
So when will this farce stop? We have silly, ignorant politicians making all sorts of comical statements mixed in with deceitful politicians blatantly lying for some selfish agenda. Giving their support, are the moral crusaders who are mostly happy clappers from the religious right or the new breed of racist, Howard loving, pro-Israel, Tim Blair arse licking neo-conservatives. And in case you still have missed it, we have the sensational and heavily biased Murdoch media pumping out myths, lies and inane opinion pieces designed to brainwash a susceptible public.

Anyone with a hint of intelligence should be able to see the massive flaws in the current system. For example, why do we still have a major drug problem after 50 years of being “Tough on Drugs”? Why is alcohol still legal when it kills 10 times the number of people who die from all illicit drugs combined? Where are the masses of drug induced mental health patients? Why are there still so many drugs available when every week we hear that a new bust was supposed to greatly reduce drug supply?

Where is the common sense and pragmatism? Why do we spend billions on stopping drug supplies but drugs are now easier to obtain than ever before? Why do we keep rolling out the same expensive “Tough on Drugs” strategy when it never meets it’s targets? Why aren’t politicians caught out by the media for lying when they make brash, non-truthful statements? Most anti-drug claims by politicians are simply lies with no scientific evidence but for some reason, opposing political parties don’t just let it slide by but usually try to out do them. This childish banter of “I’m tougher on drugs than you” is purely political and only exacerbates the societal damage already inflicted. And the damage is real, costing many lives and causing incredible carnage. Why is this allowed to continue without any real scrutiny from the media?

While advances in science and medicine bound along exponentially, the approach to drug use lingers in the dark ages. Keeping the public ignorant and fearful of drugs is the prime objective for politicians because it’s a vote winner. That would change if the public were more aware of the facts but with decades of propaganda, myths and fear being forced on them, they don’t have hope. It’s spooky to think that just 10-20 minutes on the intertubes would expose a 100 years of misinformation and lies with the truth there for anyone who cares to find out.

Police Arrest More Than 300 People At Big Day Out
(AAP) PerthNow
January 2010

MORE than 300 people were arrested over the two-day Big Day Out music festival in Sydney, with one person caught with 24 ecstasy tablets, police said today.

Police, including officers from the Dog Squad and Commuter Crime unit, targeted drug and alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour at the festival in Homebush on Friday and Saturday.

A total of 381 people were arrested, with police laying 104 drug possession charges, 12 drug supply charges, six assault charges and one malicious damage charge.

Police also issued nine cannabis cautions, ejected 11 drunk people and caught 18 people trying to jump the fence into the venue.

Ambulance officers were also kept busy, with 1587 people treated by St John Ambulance volunteers over both days, while 36 patients were taken to hospital.

Many of those revellers were treated for dehydration, as temperatures climbed into the 40's on both days.

Drugs seized during the police operation included cannabis, ecstasy, ice, LSD, cocaine and amphetamines.

"One person was found entering the venue allegedly in possession of 24 ecstasy tablets," police said in a statement.

Superintendent Rod Smith said most festival-goers enjoyed themselves responsibly, but some people still hadn't got the message.

"Year after year we repeat the same warnings before the event starts, but every year there are still people who stupidly try to get past us and fail," Supt Smith said in a statement.

"The results also show that anti-social behaviour won't be tolerated, and those charged over the last two days will have to face the consequences at court."

Drug Madness Costs Decades of Research

For the last 100 years, politics, moral panic and special interest groups have shaped the world’s drug policies often leaving facts and science behind in the race for a drug free world. Just last week, Professor David Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the UK was sacked after he claimed that cannabis, ecstasy and LSD were less harmful than the legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. Professor Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol has long been a critic of the UK drug scheduling list, often saying that drug policy is not based on science or research but political posturing. The current UK government is the countries first administration in power to ignore a report from the AMCD and implement contradicting recommendations. The science community is in an uproar that an independent scientific committee can have their chief scientist sacked for simply telling the truth that just happens to conflict with the government’s political position. Professor Nutt and his colleagues had previously initiated several government enquiries into drug policy but each one has been shut down by members of the government when it threatened their political position. The failure to class drugs appropriately might seem illogical or just a political game by dopey politicians but the real world carnage for users is life changing. With courts able to dish out some serious prison time, addicts, users and dealers face daily the possibility of spending decades behind bars. The effects are usually devastating on the families and friends involved.

Led by the US, the UN has constantly pushed all member countries to support and ratify treaties with more restrictive and harsher drug policies. This led to various treaties for different regions but they were eventually wrapped into The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs with The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances following a decade later. The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances later expanded the two existing treaties to better tackle global organised crime and place more pressure on consumer countries to arrest drug users and addicts instead of just the manufacturers, suppliers and dealers. Yes, you read that right ... a concerted effort to arrest more users and addicts.

... each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.
-The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances

The reliance on extreme and harsh punitive measures to manage drug policies has created a massive artificial, illegal industry worth $400 billion dollars a year. It also created a world living in fear. It started in the early 1900s when authorities arrested doctors who prescribed opiates for addiction and continued to the current day restrictions on medical research involving illicit drugs. Drugs that held great promise for various ailments were often forced unnecessarily onto the most dangerous list when they became popular for recreational use by the public. Doctors are hesitant to prescribe strong painkillers for fear of being targeted by the over zealous authorities. Substitution treatment for heroin addicts is limited to a few basic opioids as heroin assisted treatment (HAT) was deemed to breach UN drug treaties. Even medical marijuana has been ignored by most countries as decades of propaganda has tarnished it’s image as a dangerous drug.

Cannabis
Strangely enough, cannabis would have never been banned had the US congress accepted the advice of the American Medical Association(AMA) and not the racist views of Harry Anslinger, director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger hated Mexicans (who were the main users then) and had a lot of personal interest in banning marijuana. Incidentally, Anslinger had once claimed it’s use was harmless. Dr. William Woodward from the AMA also appeared in congress that day and contradicted every reason put forward by Anslinger for banning cannabis. But the chairman chose to read articles from the media as proof that cannabis was as dangerous as Anslinger claimed. Ironically, the beat-up in the media was the main issue raised by the AMA that said the US media was not basing their articles on any evidence whatsoever and none of their claims have ever been scrutinised by research. It’s worth noting that the owner of the newspapers that printed these stories was William Randolf Hearst who had huge financial interests in closing down the hemp industry. He was also a well known racist who hated Mexicans as much as Anslinger. After ignoring any science put forward by the AMA, the bill was passed. When the bill went to the floor of the house to be approved another incredible incident helped seal the fate of cannabis and hemp.

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth(Woodward) came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.”

And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

-Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant

Although 15 states in the US now support medical marijuana which treats millions of patients, it is still listed as a schedule I drug.

Schedule I Drug:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

As you can see, points B and C simply do not apply to cannabis. This is an example of how outdated and obsolete that drug scheduling is in it’s current form. Since drug laws and punishment are usually based on scheduling a huge array of issues are distorted including crime, sentencing and research.

Although cannabis is classed as having “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” , there are many claims about it being a miracle treatment for all sorts of conditions, including cancer. From Ricky Simpson to Harvard University, claims of cannabis fighting cancer cells or even being a cure have been circulating since the 1960s. According to the BBC in their health section, cannabis helps reduce the side effects of chemotherapy by allowing patients to regain their appetite quickly and reduce nausea. For these reasons, it is also used for AIDS patients with Wasting Disease. Cannabis also helps treat multiple sclerosis, menstrual cramps, depression, mood disorders, glaucoma, asthma, strokes, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, alcoholism and insomnia. However, according to the BBC there are side effects and the “opponents of the use of cannabis” point out - it damages the ability to concentrate. If these “opponents of the use of cannabis” get their way, all the people suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis etc. can concentrate all the better on dying a slow, painful death.




Apart from marijuana, other drugs listed in the US as schedule I are heroin, mescaline, MDMA(ecstasy), GHB, LSD and psilocybin(magic mushrooms). You might notice that some of these drugs don’t fit the criteria very well especially point B that says, The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. MDMA, LSD and psilocybin were showing great potential when used during the 1960s and 1970s for various psychiatric studies and physiological therapy. But like all drugs that become popular for recreational use, they were quickly banned in a bid to protect the public from harming themselves. In their haste though, the science community were also mostly denied access to these drugs regardless of their potential medical use.

Prof Roland Griffiths at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore Maryland recently published a study of 36 healthy volunteers who were given psilocybin and then observed in the lab. The participants' ages ranged from 24 to 64 and none had taken hallucinogens before. When the group were interviewed again 14 months later 58% said they rated the experience as being among the five most personally meaningful of their lives, 67% said it was in their top five spiritual experiences, and 64% said it had increased their well-being or life satisfaction.
-The Guardian: Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses

Prior to the popularity of these new hallucinogenic drugs for recreational use, they were considered to be cutting edge science. They helped scientists better understand the mind and how the brain works including the treatment of several conditions like alcoholism. The potential was exciting for the many scientists who were exposed to a whole new field and were able to treat patients that had not responded to previous treatments. But the rising use of these drugs for pleasure, especially LSD, was just too much for a conservative America and soon stories of people jumping out windows and crossing busy roads while “tripping” became urban myths. Hippies with long hair and other anti-establishment behaviour became the image embedded in the public’s mind when LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs were mentioned. Eventually the media and the government started questioning the safety of using these drugs for research with exaggerated stories of psychosis and other mental health problems. The truth is that these drugs are basically non toxic, non addictive and rarely have long term effects unless there is a pre-existing mental illness. All the success and potential didn’t matter though. They were seen as dangerous to society, immoral and a symbol of rebellious, anti-American youth.


MDMA
The story of how MDMA(ecstasy) became a schedule I drug is just one of the amazing examples of how obscure drug scheduling still is.

Most of the information available regarding street use of MDMA(in the 80s) is based on anecdotal accounts given to the media, therapists, and substance abuse professionals...
-Erowid (1987)

Without any qualified evidence, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) defied medical research and used their emergency scheduling powers to temporarily make MDMA a Schedule I drug. Several medical professionals including pharmacology experts argued that a Schedule I status would severely hinder their research into MDMA's therapeutic potential. The science community appealed the emergency classification before the administrative law judge, Francis Young who recommended that MDMA be classed as a Schedule III drug. The DEA rejected the judge’s recommendation and MDMA was made a Schedule I drug permanently. Obviously the medical experts, researchers and scientists were wrong. God damn, even the judge was wrong.


MDMA - Another Case of Crack/Cocaine Disparity?
In response to a mandate from the US Congress and after weighing the views of the Justice Department, the US Sentencing Commission in 2001 increased the penalties for MDMA offences by nearly 3000%. This made the penalty for possessing 4 ecstasy pills the equivalent of having 1 kilogram of cannabis or 1 gram of heroin.

The change makes ecstasy five times more serious to possess or sell than heroin on a per-dose basis [...] This is a wholly political act, not one based on scientific evidence
-Edward Mallett - President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Opposing the new laws and armed with scientific evidence that MDMA was nowhere near the danger levels of heroin to both society and the user, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Federation of American Scientists called for a relaxing of the laws involving MDMA distribution, possession and use. They were ignored of course in what appears to be the new crack/cocaine disparity fiasco from the 80s.

The crack/cocaine disparity laws were introduced in 1986 by Ronald Reagan in response to the crack epidemic as exaggerated claims of “crack babies” and “instant addiction” hit the media. A mandatory five-year sentence was dished out to anyone caught with 5 grams or more of cocaine which meant crack users were jailed for a drug that was much heavier than it’s powder form. Incidentally, most crack users were African American and later Hispanics. The new laws copped plenty of criticism over the years for creating severe racial disparities in the prison system but for cocaine using middle America, it wasn’t their problem.

The mechanism is known as the "100-to-1 drug ratio," which gives crack cocaine 100 times the weight of powder cocaine. Under the ratio, a person convicted of selling five grams of crack — about the weight of a teaspoon of salt — triggers the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a person convicted of selling 500 grams of powder cocaine, roughly the weight of a loaf of bread.
-TIME. August 2009

I mentioned the crack/cocaine disparity as it is a clear example of how misguided drug laws can reap so much damage especially for minorities. What’s really interesting though is that the 2001 push for ecstasy offences to be increased so heavily coincide with a White House report showing an increase in use by minorities.

The availability of ecstasy increased dramatically and more blacks and Hispanics are using the drug
-White House Drug Policy Report

And then the crunch.

We never again want another 'crack epidemic' to blindside this nation
-Edward H. Jurith - Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Is this a coincidence? A new drug policy that penalises by weight instead of dosage when the heaviest drug is being used increasingly by Blacks and Hispanics? It may sound somewhat like a conspiracy theory but since there was so much scientific evidence against these laws and with the history of US drug laws, I can’t help but wonder.

MDMA is now officially classed as having no medical value and too risky for research. How can such a potentially useful drug with a small but significant history of success suddenly be banned and placed onto the US schedule I list? How can they then increase penalties disproportionally to other drugs purely for political reasons? Is research using MDMA dead in the US?

Australia
The mere mention of street drugs sends shivers down the spine of most politicians. Unless they play the “Tough on Drugs” game, they risk the chance of being singled out as “Soft on Drugs” by the many anti-drug nutters in politics. Even those who aren’t zealots will still see it as an opportunity to attack their opposition and score political points. The sad part isn’t that it’s confined to just recreational drug use but also when these drugs are associated with medical procedures that they were originally developed for. Nothing highlights this more than when SA Attorney General, Michael Atkinson bucketed Democrat, Sandra Kanck when she suggested a study into MDMA as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress syndrome(PTSS). In a public dressing down, Atkinson said the Government would "not be supporting Sandra Kanck's latest rave" and "Vietnam Veterans are not laboratory mice for a left-wing social experiment". A year later the study was taken up by the Canadian government.

How can we forget John Howard who in August 1997, vetoed the proposed ACT heroin trial. Although the trial had support from the AMA, the medical community, both sides of parliament and most states, Howard claimed it 'sent the wrong message' and refused to sign off on the proposal wasting 6 years of careful scientific research. Importing heroin is controlled by the federal government and without their approval, the states could not source the drug from overseas. Prior to the proposed ACT heroin trials, Victorian premier, Jeff Kennett had commissioned Prof. David Pennington to report on Victoria’s drug laws. He also favoured a trial of prescription heroin and his report caught the attention of the US government. US president, Bill Clinton sent a few of his heavies to investigate the rumblings of a proposed heroin trial and Prof. Pennington was swiftly summoned to a meeting. The US and their staunch Zero Tolerance policy has dominated the UN drug offices since it’s inception. Any country that dared upset their moralist and anti-drug views were called into line very quickly often with threats. Unlike Switzerland that could run their own heroin trials without fear of US intervention, Australia had a lot under the control of the US/UN particularly, the Tasmanian poppy industry. The US goon squad made it clear that the UN run International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) managed Tasmania’s poppy production levels and a heroin trial was not welcomed by the US/UN. Although the proposed heroin trial was classed as “scientific research”, drug free rhetoric was more important to the US/UN and trumps any namby pamby scientific argument. It seems that the US not only prohibited drug research internally but in any country where they can extend their influence.

It is always sad when science is stymied by ideology, religion or ignorance. The US Bush administration and the Australian Howard government are 2 classic examples of this. During the Bush years, science was pushed aside for the religious convictions of the president and the religious right who supported him. In Australia around the same time, Bush crony, John Howard threatened non-government organisations(NGOs) and other groups who relied on government funding to submit all media releases before publishing them. It was the darkest period in Australia’s scientific history with a great number of important research studies being disregarded by our own government. Instead we were exposed to absolute tripe like The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs” and government funded evangelistic groups like Drug Free Australia(DFA). The hardest hit were the NGOs who worked in welfare and of course were supporters of Harm Minimisation. Howard hated Harm Minimisation and even denied it was Australia’s official drug policy. A change of government was welcomed by the scientific community but they were soon faced with political reality when Kevin Rudd requested all media statements from government research groups be cleared with the Prime Minister’s office.

Hope?
Fortunately, the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs has a clause that allows some programs to be classed as “scientific research”. Although it doesn’t guarantee acceptance by the UN it is often used by countries that want to keep within UN guidelines and aren’t in the position of being threaten with a US embargo like Australia was with the Tasmanian poppy industry. The Netherlands heroin assisted treatment (HAT) program is still classified as “scientific research” and has to be renewed every few years. Also, the Dutch “coffee shops” that sell cannabis are still technically illegal which keeps them inside the UN guidelines but they choose to de-prioritise the laws under a “gedoogbeleid” or tolerance policy. Australia has the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) which conflicts with UN policy but since it’s classed as a “scientific trial” and the US hasn’t tried to intervene, it’s free to operate but still needs to be re-established every 4 years.

During the Bush years, Mexican president, Vincente Fox introduced a bill that would decriminalise small amounts of all drug. The bill was passed in the Mexican congress but after intense pressure from the US, president Fox vetoed his own bill. An almost identical bill was passed this year under different US and Mexican presidents. Is this a sign of change? Has the anti-drug madness of US presidents like Reagan, Clinton and Bush(Snr. & Jr.) been confined to the history books to haunt them forever? Is the UN’s lack of criticism for the new drug laws in Mexico and Portugal suggesting a rethink of drug policies? Is this a new era for science?

We have lost nearly 40 years of research and potential medical breakthroughs because of the elected twats we put in power, Those who selfishly put their own agenda ahead of the millions who may have benefited by research into illicit drugs. From the US and their objection to researching these drugs down to state governments that oppose medical clinics as being immoral ... the winners are organised crime like drug cartels and some may argue the government who are technically “organised criminals”. The losers are clearly us, the public.

Scientists Study Possible Health Benefits Of LSD And Ecstacy
The Guardian
By Denis Campbell - Health Correspondent
October 2009

 A growing number of people are taking LSD and other psychedelic drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy to help them cope with a variety of conditions including anorexia nervosa, cluster headaches and chronic anxiety attacks.

The emergence of a community that passes the drugs between users on the basis of friendship, support and need – with money rarely involved – comes amid a resurgence of research into the possible therapeutic benefits of psychedelics. This is leading to a growing optimism among those using the drugs that soon they may be able to obtain medicines based on psychedelics from their doctor, rather than risk jail for taking illicit drugs.

Among those in Britain already using the drugs and hoping for a change in the way they are viewed is Anna Jones (not her real name), a 35-year-old university lecturer, who takes LSD once or twice a year. She fears that without an occasional dose she will go back to the drinking problem she left behind 14 years ago with the help of the banned drug.

LSD, the drug synonymous with the 1960s counter-culture, changed her life, she says. "For me it was the catalyst to give up destructive behaviour – heavy drinking and smoking. As a student I used to drink two or three bottles of wine, two or three days a week, because I didn't have many friends and didn't feel comfortable in my own skin.

"Then I took a hit of LSD one day and didn't feel alone any more. It helped me to see myself differently, increase my self-confidence, lose my desire to drink or smoke and just feel at one with the world. I haven't touched alcohol or cigarettes since that day in 1995 and am much happier than before."

Many others are using the drugs to deal with chronic anxiety attacks brought on by terminal illness such as cancer.

Research was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s into psychedelics. In some places they were even used as a treatment for anxiety, depression and addiction. But a backlash against LSD – owing to concerns that the powerful hallucinogen was becoming widespread as a recreational drug, and fear that excessive use could trigger mental health conditions such as schizophrenia – led to prohibition of research in the 1970s.

Under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act it is classified as a Class A, schedule 1 substance – which means not only is LSD considered highly dangerous, but it is deemed to have no medical research value.

Now, though, distinguished academics and highly respected institutions are looking again at whether LSD and other psychedelics might help patients. Psychiatrist Dr John Halpern, of Harvard medical school in the US, found that almost all of 53 people with cluster headaches who illegally took LSD or psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, obtained relief from the searing pain. He and an international team have also begun investigating whether 2-Bromo-LSD, a non-psychedelic version of LSD known as BOL, can help ease the same condition.

Studies into how the drug may be helping such people are also being carried out in the UK. Amanda Feilding is the director of the Oxford-based Beckley Foundation, a charitable trust that investigates consciousness, its altered states and the effects of psychedelics and meditation. She is a key figure in the revival of scientific interest in psychedelics and expresses her excitement about the initial findings of two overseas studies with which her foundation is heavily involved.

"One, at the University of California in Berkeley, was the first research into LSD to get approval from regulators and ethics bodies since the 1970s," she said. Those in the study are the first to be allowed to take LSD legally in decades as part of research into whether it aids creativity. "LSD is a potentially very valuable substance for human health and happiness."

The other is a Swiss trial in which the drug is give alongside psychotherapy to people who have a terminal condition to help them cope with the profound anxiety brought on by impending death. "If you handle LSD with care, it isn't any more dangerous than other therapies," said Dr Peter Gasser, the psychiatrist leading the trial.

At Johns Hopkins University in Washington, another trial is examining whether psilocybin can aid psychotherapy for those with chronic substance addiction who have not been helped by more conventional treatment.

Professor Colin Blakemore, a former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said the class-A status of psychedelics such as LSD should not stop them being explored as potential therapies. "No drug is completely safe, and that includes medical drugs as well as illegal substances," he said. "But we have well-developed and universally respected methods of assessing the balance of benefit and harm for new medicines.

"If there are claims of benefits from substances that are not regulated medicines – even including illegal drugs – it is important that they should be tested as thoroughly for efficacy and safety as any new conventional drug."

Past reputations may make it hard to get approval for psychedelic medicines, according to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

"The known adverse effect profiles of psychedelic drugs would have to be considered very carefully in the risk/benefit analysis before the drugs may be approved for medicinal use," said a spokeswoman. "These products, if approved, are likely to be classified as a prescription-only medicine and also likely to remain on the dangerous drug list, which means that their supply would be strictly controlled."

Related Articles:

•Clinical Trials Test Potential Of Hallucinogenic Drugs To Help Patients With Terminal Illnesses - The Guardian
•Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant
•Breakthrough Discovered in Medical Marijuana Cancer Treatment - Salem News
•MDMA Scheduling Hearing
•Will Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Reform Help Current Cons? - TIME
•Why the US won't let Australia reform its drug laws - SMH

Journalist's Shame

What sort of headline is Heroin Addicts Shame and what are the authors, Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry trying to imply? It appears to be a dig at how much drug treatment for heroin addiction is costing the tax payer. The big question is why? Why criticise the number of addicts seeking treatment?

They point out that the number of prescriptions for methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone nearly tripled from about 2.4 million in 1992 to almost seven million in 2007. Isn’t this a good trend? It appears not. The article throws around a lot of damning figures and statistics that can be interpreted several ways. The most obvious factor to me is that all attempts to stop drug use have failed. Another interpretation is that heroin use is on the rise after a lull preceded by a high that followed a low taking over from an increase from a previous dip. In other words, heroin use went up and down. I think the intention is more sinister though. Most of these figures have been reported on previously but it’s the blurring of heroin and other illicit drugs that make this article confusing. Is it really about the increase of heroin users or just a stab at all drug users. Then there’s this beauty:

Experts say Victoria's "social time bomb" will have costly effects during the next decade.

No self respecting, hysterical reporter writing about drugs would leave out a potential apocalyptic future. In what seems like an afterthought, the above line was slotted in with no reference to anything else. It just appears in a separate paragraph below some statistics on drug driving (excluding heroin) and a line stating an increase in heroin overdoses. Who are the “experts” mentioned and what is the reference point? The answer lies in a previous article by one of the authors back in August 2008, Drugs Leading Victoria To Crisis by Laurie Nowell. Maybe he assumes we read all of his articles? What it does uncover though is that Laurie Nowell has a knack for sensational stories.

For an article that is meant to shame heroin addicts, it’s strange that the authors include this quote from a pharmacist who dispenses methadone.

We have a lot of professional people . . . teachers, lawyers. It's a very wide spectrum of people. A lot of them are very decent people who have just made bad decisions and have an illness -- and addiction is an illness.

- Darryl Bason: inner-city pharmacist

Why include a comment that contradicts the headline and doesn’t support the idea that heroin addicts deserve contempt? That’s just one of several questions that needs an answer. Like, why criticise addicts seeking treatment? Why include other drugs that are declining in use? Why use drug-driving statistics that don’t include heroin? Lets use our imagination for a minute. The article was either drafted first with no idea what the point was or the authors didn’t have enough material so they added in what ever they could find or the headline was added later by a supervisor because it wasn’t going to be published or Laurie Nowell has been designated the job of sensationalising heroin. Maybe all of the above?

In an attempt to rescue a pointless article, the authors, Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry have cruelly and publicly degraded a small section of the community who already suffer ignominy and alienation. But it seems that Laurie Nowell has a reputation for being “creative” in his reporting especially with sensitive issues. Here are some examples:

Clearly reporter Laurie Nowell made no effort to research the Mufti or didn’t care about the points listed below

I hope there is a way for Laurie Nowell to read your account and be informed. It is insulting for him to spread his tripe - does he honestly think that readers will believe his Pollyanna account of Fehmi's creed and actions. I thought journalists were supposed to look under the surface of events - he has just seen the dust on the elephant, but not described the the elephant.

Laurie Nowell should be reprimanded by the Herald Sun for his sloppy journalism.

-The Fehmi Fantasy

and

Laurie Powell didn't even get that part right. Stories like this, don't help the mens rights and they certainly don't help Laurie Powell who doesn't mind telling a few lies to get published.

[...]

Then there was this garbage which contained lies yet again by Laurie Nowell.

-Oz Pig Page (blog)

and

How can an article with no names, dates that don’t make sense and is the most read article on the day, ever get past your editors or the authorities for that matter. Laurie Nowell might as well be making up the news.

-Comment by Reader about a Laurie Nowell article - So The False Claims Worked

and

LOL at "coma in a bottle", these journo's have no idea, constantly making up these bullshit slang names just to help illustrate the purpose of their shitty, shitty articles. I bet if it weren't for articles like this, half the people currently importing GBL wouldn't even know about it.

-Comment by Reader about a Laurie Nowell article - Blue Light

and

May I add to Barge of Brisbane's comment ... where the bloody hell does Laurie Nowell live? He obviously doesn't write from a national perspective. I reside in Denmark WA. My two 13500 litre house water tanks and about to overflow after an abundance of wet weather recently (its raining as I write) In fact much of WA has benefited from wide spread rain. Ditto Queensland and northern NSW. So did the journalist sitting in his Melbourne media headquarters just fake his story after a quick phone around? Is Nowell part of the Global Warming scare story that will benefit a few at the expense of many? A familiar pattern is developing, instill fear into the electorate that will allow Penny Wong and her ministry to institute drastic measures while pointing to questionable media items such as Nowell's to justify their actions. Is it any wonder Australians are sceptical of stories put on them by journalists and politicians ?

-Comment by Reader in the HeraldSun

Laurie Nowell was even dragged into court for his “creative” reporting - Newspaper Criticised For Heroin Ship Stories

I’m not sure what input Evonne Barry contributed to the article and it may just be that since she is a health reporter for News Ltd, her name was added automatically. Maybe she provided some of the statistics or research? Either way, adding her name to such a ridiculous article will not help her credibility.

Laurie Nowell likes exciting stories as shown by his headlines. And like most Murdoch reporters, he has a job to do and papers to sell. Whether the articles are accurate or unbiased is secondary at the News Ltd money making factory. Do these headlines ring a bell?:

Melbourne City Losing War Against Heroin

Drugs Leading Victoria To Crisis

Pokies Are For Losers

Gangland Wife Roberta Williams Hits Jackpot With 'Blood Money' Book

Parents Warned Of Online Militants

Victoria Is Australia's Abortion 'Capital'

Maybe “Heroin Addicts Shame” is his best yet. It’s sure to resonate with HeraldSun readers and keep the public hostile towards drug addicts and users. But that’s not his problem, drug addicts are shameful remember and those seeking help are a burden on the government’s finances. He has done his job and all is good at the HeraldSun.

What ever did happened to media responsibility? What ever happened to a journalist’s integrity? Are there so many second rate media outlets now that sloppy journalist can always find a job? You can thank John Howard for our disgraceful media ownership laws where someone like Murdoch can own major newspapers in every state. It appears that infotainment is here to stay and one person’s political bias or social views can be pushed into every corner of Australia. Worst still, is the acceptance of trash media in our lives and shoddy journalists like Laurie Nowell are the source of information for millions of people. No wonder the anti-drug propaganda that started decades ago is still accepted as fact when the media continues to publish articles like “Heroin Addicts Shame”.

Heroin Addicts Shame

Sunday Herald Sun

By Laurie Nowell and Evonne Barry

May 2009

AUSTRALIA'S escalating heroin epidemic is now costing the taxpayer $100 million a year.

There are now almost 50,000 heroin addicts receiving taxpayer-funded treatment in Australia as the illicit drug epidemic returns to a scale not seen since the 1980s.

Victoria has recorded the greatest increase in addicts of any state, with almost 12,000 - a number that has more than doubled since 1998 - and now costs the taxpayer more than $22 million for treatments.

An analysis released this week of PBS data has found the number of prescriptions for methadone and other heroin recovery drugs in Australia almost tripled from about 2.4 million in 1992 to almost seven million in 2007.

In June last year there were more than 41,000 drug addicts receiving treatment and that figure is estimated to have risen since then.

A dose of methadone costs, on average, $5 and with almost 50,000 addicts receiving one a day, the cost to the nation's health system has doubled in a decade.

The increase in addicts has accelerated since 2000, according to the study by Sydney's Drug Health Service at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of New South Wales.

Report author Amber Jefferson said about 27,500 - or about two-thirds of addicts being treated -- were male.

She said about 65 per cent of addicts received treatment drugs from private prescribers -- 85 per cent of them in pharmacies.

But the reality of heroin addiction did not fit the stereotype, inner-city pharmacist Darryl Bason said.

"We have a lot of professional people . . . teachers, lawyers. It's a very wide spectrum of people," Mr Bason said. "A lot of them are very decent people who have just made bad decisions and have an illness -- and addiction is an illness."

Mr Bason said about 130 people were being treated for heroin addiction at his pharmacy.

About 70 per cent of addicts were receiving methadone and the remainder the more expensive buprenorphine or buprenorphine/naloxone.

Data from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine released late last year showed Melbourne had become the nation's drug capital.

Results from the state's world-first drug-drive testing program showed an increase in drivers affected by amphetamines and cannabis.

Of drivers killed in road accidents, 15 per cent tested positive to cannabis and about 8 per cent to stimulants such as amphetamines and pseudoephedrine - figures that have tripled since 2003.

Recent tests showed one in 50 drivers randomly tested were found to have illegal drugs in their system.

And heroin overdose deaths have increased, with about 90 last year.

Experts say Victoria's "social time bomb" will have costly effects during the next decade.

Another study, comparing key police lock-ups across the country, found more than half those detained in Footscray were heroin users.

The Australian Institute of Criminology study found the next highest rate of heroin use was 15 per cent in Brisbane, then 12 per cent at Parramatta and Adelaide.

The study also found more than 73 per cent of detainees at Footscray tested positive to an illicit drug - mostly heroin or benzodiazepines (tranquillisers).

All those arrested for robbery, car theft, possession of drugs or as a result of a warrant tested positive to illegal drugs. And 80 per cent of those arrested for selling drugs were users.