Drug Laws Do More Harm Than Good

The growing global debate over drug laws might be making news overseas but Australia seems to be stuck in a time warp led by the old "War on Drugs" mentality. With some countries actually decriminalising all drugs for personal use - including heroin, ice, LSD, cocaine, GHB etc. - Australia is yet to even have a public discussion about medical marijuana, yet any proposed reform to our antiquated drug laws.

It may seem odd to an outside observer that much of the Australian media and politicians remain quiet while several recent events have exposed how futile and dangerous our current drug policies are. Last week, ABC’s Four Corners program, delivered a harsh wake up call that we are fighting a losing battle against criminals in the illicit drug trade. And just last night, a Sydney police officer was shot and killed while raiding a suspected drug den although no drugs were found on the premises. The bleak reality from these and other events is that our attempts to tackle illicit drugs are not only failing but are dangerous as well.

So why do we have such strict drug laws? It’s always the same answer … to protect us from dangerous substances that ruin lives or kill people. But this is simply not true as most illicit drugs are actually less harmful than the legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Either of which, kill and harm more people than all illicit drugs combined. And the reasoning for our strict drug laws become even more questionable since we discovered that they don’t even deter drug use but instead increase the harm to users and reduce the public's safety.

It appears that criminalising drug users can change the way they use drugs, but it doesn't usually stop them using drugs

-- Margaret Pereira - Queensland University of Technology Legal Researcher

It’s a real problem that in 2010, we as a society can allow certain laws remain unchallenged when we know they are dangerous, especially to our youth. Any politician who is complicit in promoting or retaining our dangerous laws that kill and harm people, need to explain themselves. It is no longer acceptable to push dangerous strategies like the "Tough on Drugs" policy for the sake of political expediency. Especially when we are continually being shown how much damage our current practices are causing without meeting any of the set objectives.

Do Drug Laws 'Harm' Drug Users?

Health Canal 

August 2010

The "one size fits all" nature of Australia's drug laws may do more harm than good when it comes to recreational drug users, according to a Queensland University of Technology legal researcher.

Margaret Pereira from QUT's Law and Justice Research Centre has launched a PhD study into young people and illicit drugs and has appealed for Brisbane drug users to come forward and anonymously have their say on their lifestyle.

Ms Pereira said it was important to understand that people used drugs in a whole variety of different ways, some of which were more harmful than others.

She said charging young people for relatively minor offences, such as drug possession, could defeat the purpose of drug law enforcement as a strategy to reduce drug-related harm.

"There's a common belief that young people who use drugs regularly have got a 'drug problem', such as an addictive personality, or some other biological or psychological problem," Ms Pereira said.

"In reality, it is only a small number of illicit drug users who define their drug use as problematic to themselves or others.

"Most young people use drugs recreationally, for fun, pleasure or leisure, and often within nightclubs or rave cultures.

"This doesn't mean that their drug use is completely free of danger, but it does mean that it's important to understand how illicit drugs are being used, and design drug policies that directly target drug-related harm."

Ms Pereira has already started interviewing young people aged 18 to 25 who use illicit drugs either recreationally or habitually.

She hopes to interview a fairly equal number of "regular" and "recreational" drug users. She is also interviewing the police, health service providers and youth advocacy workers to obtain their views about drug policies.

"Preliminary findings from my interviews suggest that when young people want to use drugs, they will, even after they've been charged with a criminal drug offence," she said.

"It appears that criminalising drug users can change the way they use drugs, but it doesn't usually stop them using drugs.

"This finding supports other study findings that criminalisation can have profoundly harmful, unintended consequences on the community and on young people. Charging them for relatively minor offences, such as drug possession, can defeat the purpose of drug law enforcement as a strategy to reduce drug-related harm.

"Another interesting finding from my interviews is the huge range of different drugs young people use and their choice of drug is often based on drug availability."

Ms Pereira said she hoped her PhD research would help build a better understanding of illicit drug use and contribute to effective policy formation.

Gateway Theory Debunked … Again!

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

--WebMD Medical Reference

You have to feel sorry for people who have learning difficulties. Especially those who bang on and on and on about cannabis being a “gateway” to harder drugs.

It seems that no amount of evidence will stop over zealous, dip-shit anti-drug pundits from spreading their lies and propaganda. Not even those pesky scientists who keep proving them wrong, will keep them quiet.

I wonder what their response will be to the latest study by researchers at the University of New Hampshire who once again disproved “The Gateway Theory”? Somehow I doubt if we will hear much about it. When was the last time you heard a politician or anti-drug group declare they were wrong or the “The Gateway Theory” is obsolete? When was the last time you read about it in the mainstream media?

So, why do they persist? Most people or groups who constantly reject medical research and scientific evidence are usually just written off as nutters but some of these zealots will go to great lengths in a desperate attempt to push their disingenuous cause. Even to the point of using junk science. For example:

In contrast, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy’s “2008 Marijuana Sourcebook” clearly states that recent research supports the gateway hypothesis, specifically that “its use creates greater risk of abuse or dependency on other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine”.

--Drug Free Australia (DFA): Cannabis – Suicide, Schizophrenia And Other Ill-Effects (March 2009)

Of course, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy aka The Drug Czar is notorious for dishing up government sponsored propaganda. Remember, this is the group that manages the "War on Drugs" for the US and the UN. Maybe if they spent more time reading up on the available scientific evidence instead of sifting through volumes of anti-drug propaganda they would come to a different conclusion. Nah, who am I kidding?

It is hard to keep the same attitudes to cannabis prohibition when Obama and the two previous US Presidents are known to have smoked cannabis. Perhaps cannabis is a gateway drug after all * the drug that young Americans have to try if they want to become President of the USA.

--Dr. Alex Wodak - Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service, St Vincent’s Hospital

Ironically, there is some truth about cannabis leading to harder drugs but not for the reasons quoted by the gateway theory supporters. It’s actually the policies pushed by these supporters that are to blame. Simply smoking cannabis doesn’t make someone automatically want something stronger or harder. It’s the association with drug dealers that smokers are forced to endure because of our strict drug laws. Some of these dealers will undoubtedly sell harder drugs, giving way to pressure to try another drug. Pot smokers are forced underground where all drug users are grouped together by a society that doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. Most pot smokers never go on to harder drugs nor do they want to but being forced underground with addicts, criminals and speed dealers exposes them to a world that they normally wouldn’t encounter.

Teen Pot Smoking Won't Lead to Other Drugs as Adults

Study Shows Marijuana Isn't a 'Gateway' to Other Drugs as Teens Turn Into Adults

WebMD Medical Reference 

By Salynn Boyles. Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD

September 2010

New research finds little support for the hypothesis that marijuana is a "gateway" drug leading to the use of harder drugs in adulthood.

Teens in the study who smoked marijuana were more likely to go on to use harder illicit drugs, but the gateway effect was lessened by the age of 21, investigators say.

Harder drugs in the study referred to illicit drugs that include analgesics, cocaine, hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, sedatives, stimulants, and tranquilizers.

The study is published in the September issue of the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.

Failure to graduate from high school or find a job were all bigger predictors of drug use in young adulthood than marijuana use during adolescence, says study researcher Karen Van Gundy, who is a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire.

She adds that the findings have implications for policymakers on the front lines in the war on drugs.

"If we overly criminalize behaviors like marijuana use among teens, this could interfere with opportunities for education and employment later on, which, in turn, could be creating more drug use," she tells WebMD.

Marijuana's Gateway Effect Goes Away

Van Gundy says she did not set out to disprove the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug when she and co-researcher Cesar J. Rebellon examined survey data from 1,300 mostly male Hispanic, white, and African-American young adults who attended south Florida public schools in the 1990s. The participants were followed from enrollment in the sixth or seventh grade until they reached their late teens or early 20s.

"Most of the previous research has examined early drug use among people with serious drug problems," she says. "These people do tend to progress from alcohol and marijuana use to other drugs."

When the teens in the study were followed forward into young adulthood, however, a different picture emerged.

"We were somewhat surprised to find the gateway effect wasn't that strong during the transition to adulthood," Van Gundy says. "It really didn't matter if someone used marijuana or not as a teen."

Specifically, the study found illicit drug abuse in young adulthood to be much more closely linked to stress during the teen years and whether or not the young adults were employed.

"Assuming and occupying conventional roles, such as 'worker,' may close the marijuana gateway by modifying and redirecting substance use trajectories," the researchers write.

The Fight Against Drugs

The findings suggest anti-drug efforts aimed at keeping kids in school and providing employment opportunities may have the biggest positive impact on drug use in adulthood, Van Gundy says.

Urban sociologist and drug-use researcher Lesley Reid agrees.

An associate professor of sociology at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Reid's research has focused on the gateway effect of so-called club drugs like ecstasy and cocaine among heavy drug users in their 20s.

She says most of these heavy users do start with alcohol and marijuana and progress to harder drugs.

"Obviously, we don't see this age effect among these heavy users," she tells WebMD. "But in the general population most people do outgrow behaviors like drug use and other delinquent behaviors."

'Gateway' Pioneer Critical of Study

But Columbia University sociologist Denise B. Kandel, PhD, whose research early in the decade found marijuana to be a gateway drug, calls the new research highly flawed and the conclusions "ill founded."

She tells WebMD that the design of the study did not allow the researchers to properly test the hypothesis that marijuana is a gateway drug.

Kandel does not disagree with the conclusion that social position in young adulthood plays a big role in drug use during this time. But she says the researchers fail to consider the potential impact of early marijuana use on social position.

"Using marijuana as a teen can certainly have an impact on whether or not someone fails to graduate from high school or gets a job," she says. "And this increases the risk of persistent illicit drug use."

Supporters of “The Gateway Theory”

With all the readily available evidence to debunk “The Gateway Theory”, you would think that only crackpots like Drug Free Australia (DFA) would keep pushing this farce. But this is the scary part - many officials funded by the public purse continue to cite “The Gateway Theory” as a fact. How can police ministers, police chiefs, politicians etc. continue this lie when our very own National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC) don’t support it? NCPIC aren’t exactly without bias themselves but at least they acknowledge that “The Gateway Theory” is dubious at best.

Most people who use illegal drugs, like heroin or amphetamine, first used drugs like alcohol, tobacco or cannabis. These substances, but most usually cannabis, are seen as a 'gateway' to the use of other, more dangerous drugs. However, the vast majority of people who do use cigarettes, alcohol or cannabis never use other illicit drugs. For example, while the majority of heroin users have used cannabis, only around 4% of cannabis users have used heroin.

--National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC)

Below is a collection of quotes from people or groups who support the “gateway” myth. You may notice that most of them are paid by you via your taxes.

This paper seeks to provide an introduction to the available literature on cannabis and the issues arising from cannabis use today, including: a description of the drug and its use; the increased potency of cannabis in the market; cannabis as a “gateway” to harder drug use; the issues of dependence and withdrawal; the significant cannabis harms on mental health, brain function and development, and physical conditions such as cancer; and, the problems encountered when trying to quit cannabis and the generally poor outcomes today.

--Drug Free Australia (DFA): Cannabis – Suicide, Schizophrenia And Other Ill-Effects (March 2009)

It does cause psychosis, it does destroy families and it is a gateway drug to heavier use.

--NSW Minister for Police Michael Daley (7 Feb 2010)

For many young people, cannabis can be used as a ‘gateway’ drug into more dangerous illicit drugs, with most heroin and cocaine users first experimenting with cannabis and research showing regular cannabis users are 140 times more likely to advance to stronger drugs than people who had not tried cannabis.

--Victorian Liberal Party (Jan 2010)

Amongst drug users, cannabis is very widely recognised as having been their gateway drug into heavier drugs.

--Peter Abetz - WA Liberal Party MP - Legislative Assembly (April 2010)

Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs

--WA Premier Colin Barnett (Oct 2009)

Those of us who have worked in the field for many years know that marijuana is a 'gateway drug'

--Brian Watters. Salvation Army

I look forward to the next session of Parliament, because then I will not have to listen to the hypocrisy of the Hon. Richard Jones in continuing to berate tobacco use while condoning the use of the world's greatest gateway drug, marijuana.

--Malcolm Jones MP (Dec 2002)

Marijuana is a gateway drug

--Reverend Fred Nile MLC (June 1998)

Ample research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia and can be a gateway to harder drugs

--Donna Faragher - W.A. Opposition Youth Affairs Spokeswoman (Aug 2008)

That was not considered to be the case 30 years ago, but now it has been proven that cannabis is a gateway drug.

--Mike Board - WA Liberal Party MLA (April 2003)

Targeting cannabis use as the first drug in the chain towards drug abuse (based on the ‘gateway’ theory) was also identified as a key element.

--New Zealand National Drug Intelligence Bureau - Joint Operation Of Police, Customs & Health Departments (2007)

Moreover, marijuana is a “gateway” drug

--General Barry R. McCaffrey - US Drug Czar (1997)

Cannabis has been known and identified as a gateway drug, leading to the use of more and stronger drugs to get a greater kick

--Liz Cunninhgham MP - Independent (May 2009)

The report refers to cannabis as a gateway drug—

[…]

The long-term impact will be the use of other, stronger, quicker and equally destructive drugs such as heroin, amphetamines and ecstasy.

--Mark McArdle MP - Liberal (May 2009)

This has a lifelong impact on their families, it has an impact on crimes that are committed as illicit drugs are used, especially where it is a gateway drug, and it has an impact because of the sheer cost involved in caring for someone with schizophrenia through their life.

--Chris Foley MP - Independent (May 2009)

Cannabis is also known to be a gateway drug. Multiple studies have shown that the use of cannabis on an ongoing basis creates the risk of abuse of other drugs, such as heroin and cocaine.

--Michael Sutherland MLA - Liberal (May 2010)

About 40 per cent think cannabis is always addictive, and one in five said it is always a gateway to harder drugs. 

--HeraldSun - Dope Loses Its Cool (Feb 2007)

The other obvious argument is that in America, 80 per cent of marijuana users go on to using cocaine. So it is clearly a gateway drug.

--John Bradford MP - Liberal - Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Evaluation of the National Crime Authority (May 1997)

Related Articles

Study Says Marijuana No Gateway Drug

Marijuana Gateway Risk Overblown: Study

Study Contends Pot Isn't a Major 'Gateway Drug'

Fairfax Misleads Public About Cannabis Study

Ketamine Magic - Recreational Drugs to the Rescue

Once again, the idiotic practice of banning recreational drugs outright has been exposed for delaying important research that may help millions of people. This practice, often initiated by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has seen the shutdown of research into drugs like cannabis, LSD, MDMA(ecstasy), ketamine etc. The sole reason is that people may abuse these drugs although no consideration is given for the real harms and instead, is determined by the perceived harms. The problem is that the perceived harms are dreamed up by bureaucrats, moral crusaders and anti-drug nutters. The many possible benefits are played down as an unacceptable risk compared to the danger of abusing these drugs, usually without any evidence to prove it. Just like stem cell research is hindered by religious groups, drugs that become popular for recreational use are quickly banned outright by anti-drug zealots for similar reasons. Stuff the science and potential to help hundreds of millions of sufferers - we can’t have people getting high and enjoying themselves. It’s just immoral!

The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: Implications for the treatment of mood disorders

After a pause of nearly 40 years in research into the effects of psychedelic drugs, recent advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), psilocybin and ketamine have led to renewed interest in the clinical potential of psychedelics in the treatment of various psychiatric disorders. Recent behavioural and neuroimaging data show that psychedelics modulate neural circuits that have been implicated in mood and affective disorders, and can reduce the clinical symptoms of these disorders. These findings raise the possibility that research into psychedelics might identify novel therapeutic mechanisms and approaches that are based on glutamate-driven neuroplasticity.

-- Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 (August 18, 2010)

Now, the really good news. Last week, researchers from Yale University reported that a horse anaesthetic and party drug called ketamine has shown an incredible ability to treat depression, bipolar and stress. They even went as far as to say, 'It's like a magic drug -- one dose can work rapidly and last for seven to 10 days'. When low key scientists use terminology like 'magic drug', you know they’re on to something big.

Interestingly, my doctor told me about some addiction centres in Melbourne who were having success with ketamine being used to reduce tolerance to opiates like heroin, morphine etc. Maybe they are related in some way? The scientists from Yale said that ketamine was not only a treatment for depression but it  physically repairs the brain by acting on a pathway that forms new synaptic connections between neurons. Who knows what this may also lead to in the struggle to treat opiate addiction?

'Party Drug' For Depression?

William Weir

LA Times

August 2010

Known to some as 'Special K', ketamine could be developed into a safe medication.

  

Yale researchers hope to develop a form of ketamine — an effective but very dangerous antidepressant — that's safe, easy to use and effective within hours of taking it.

A new study sheds light on how the drug affects operations in the brain, and why it works so fast compared to other antidepressants. The study was led by Ronald Duman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Yale, and George Aghajanian, professor of pharmacology. It will be published Friday in the journal Science.

The most popular antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft, which are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), can take weeks before patients feel their effects. Saying that it's "like a magic drug," Duman notes that one dose of ketamine works fast and can last for up to 10 days.

"Clearly, there is a need for a ketamine-like drug with rapid results," he said. Adding to its benefits is that studies indicate that about 70 percent of patients who are resistant to other antidepressants respond to ketamine.

Ketamine was developed in the early 1960s and used as an anaesthetic, commonly for soldiers in Vietnam. In the 1990s, it gained a reputation as a "party drug" (known as "Special K") and has been known to cause short-term psychotic symptoms.

For about 10 years, its potential as an antidepressant has been known. Because of its potency, though, it is only administered intraveneously in clinical settings, which significantly limits its use. It's usually prescribed in low doses for patients suffering severe depression who have been resistant to other treatments.

With new information about how it works, though, Duman believes a form of ketamine could be developed that's much safer and more convenient to take.

"That would be the ultimate goal, to develop the drug as a pill," he said.

Unlike SSRI medications, ketamine does not involve the chemical serotonin as a primary function. By testing ketamine on rats, the researchers were able to examine how the drug worked its way through the brain. What they found was that ketamine helped restore synaptic connections between the neurons, which had been damaged by chronic stress. It does this partly by activating an enzyme called mTOR, setting of a chain reaction.

"Ketamine is able to jumpstart and get these systems revved up again," Duman said.

UK Push for Expanding Heroin Assisted Treatment

A recent article in the medical journal, The Lancet has once again highlighted the need for Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) to be expanded in the UK.

Although the article draws upon previously released research results, it was still important enough to catch the media’s attention.

A Google News search found 182 related articles including from The Press Association, The Associated Press, TopNews, Pharmacy News, Reuters, BusinessWeek, BBC News, CBC, The Northern Echo, Irish Independent etc. but not a single mention from any major media outlet in Australia.

The only Australian article I found was in the hard copy edition of the Townsville Bulletin.

Heroin Therapy Call for 'Chronic Addicts'

BBC News

By Emma Wilkinson - Health Reporter

May 2010

Injectable "medical" grade heroin should be offered under supervision to the most hardened addicts, say UK researchers.

A trial in 127 addicts who had persistently failed to quit the drug showed a significant drop in use of "street" heroin after six months.

Writing in The Lancet, the researchers said the "robust evidence" supports wider provision of heroin treatment.

A spokesman for the government said it would consider the findings.

Around 5-10% of heroin addicts fail to quit despite use of conventional treatments, such as methadone.

Those who took part in the trial had been using the drug for an average of 17 years and had been in treatment for 10 years.

When they took part in the programme they were on methadone treatment but were still taking street heroin on a regular basis.

The researchers - working at clinics in south London, Brighton and Darlington - found that those offered injectable heroin under the supervision of a nurse were significantly more likely to cut down their use of street heroin than those receiving oral or injectable methadone.

Improvements were seen within six weeks of starting the programme, they reported.

In further analysis yet to be published, it was noted that the benefits remained after two years and some patients were able to stop use of the drug altogether.

Treatable

Study leader, Professor John Strang, from the National Addiction Centre at King's College London, said the supervised heroin programme enables patients to start thinking about employment, re-engaging with their families and taking responsibility for their lives.

"This is a treatment for a severe group of heroin addicts that ordinary treatments have failed with and the question we're answering is 'are these patients untreatable?'."

"The very good news is that you can get these people on a constructive trajectory."

He said the latest study plus a series of other trials now provide clear evidence that this type of treatment should be offered more widely.

It was outlined in the UK government's 2008 Drug Strategy, subject to the results from this trial.

He added that although more expensive than conventional treatments, heroin therapy is considerably cheaper than imprisonment.

A Department of Health spokesman said any approach that gets people off drugs for good should be explored.

"We will look at evidence and both the clinical and cost effectiveness of these treatments.

"However, it is vital that we do all we can to prevent people using drugs in the first place."

Dr Roy Robertson a reader in the Department of Community Health Sciences at Edinburgh University, said whilst none of the outcomes are close to achieving abstinence, treatment with supervised injectable heroin "seems to be our best option".

"This is the intensive care for those heroin users who have failed after all sorts of other available treatments and continue to inject."

DrugScope chief executive Martin Barnes added that there is no "magic bullet" and several treatment interventions may be needed before someone becomes drug free or cuts down their drug use.

"On the basis of the outcomes described, there is a strong case for extending heroin prescribing as a carefully targeted and closely supervised form of treatment for chronic addiction."

Related Articles

Giving Free Drugs to Addicts

Who Supports a Heroin Trial?

What Does Prescription Heroin Really Mean for Junkies?

The Start of Prescription Heroin in Australia?

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

Heroin Assisted Treatment Winning Approval in Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Independent 

By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter

April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles

Even The Feds Want Drug Policy Changes

Soft on Drugs Causes Ambulance Call Outs to Rise

The Liberal Party on Drugs

Sophie Mirabella - Another “Tough on Drugs” Looney Lib

Stop Repeating Yourselves ... You’re Wrong

Fairfax Misleads Public About Cannabis Study

Ho ho ho. Read the article below and ask yourself, would you admit to penning this crap? No wonder there’s no author’s name attached.

I might often target the media outlets under the control of Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd but there’s usually a good reason ... they are atrocious and deserve the scorn they get. Fairfax newspapers though have traditionally kept their standards much higher than trashy media like The Daily Telegraph, The CourierMail, The HeraldSun etc. The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and The Brisbane Times from Fairfax are definitely several pegs above the competition but that seems to be changing. Their latest foray into the realm of trash media involves that old favourite of Murdoch’s journalists ... drug hysteria!

Cannabis 'Leads To Drink, Hard Drugs'
Sydney Morning Herald

April 2010

Parents have been warned to take a tough line on teenagers who smoke cannabis, with research showing even occasional use can lead to alcoholism and harder drugs.

Fairfax newspapers say about 2000 Australian schoolchildren were tracked over a decade in a study that found those who had used cannabis occasionally at age 13 and 14 were more likely to be taking ecstasy, cocaine or amphetamines at 24. They were also more at risk of addiction to cannabis, with one in 10 occasional teenage users hooked as adults.

Almost one-third of occasional cannabis users were taking harder drugs in their early 20s compared with 11 per cent of those who had not earlier used the substance.

The study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, linked higher levels of alcoholism to cannabis use. It said 15 per cent of occasional cannabis smokers were addicted to alcohol in early adulthood, compared with only nine per cent of those who had not smoked dope.

The study contradicts previous research that suggested regularly smoking the drug could lead to adult substance abuse but was less harmful if used infrequently.

Lead author Louisa Degenhardt, from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW, said the study highlighted the need for early intervention to stop children taking up the habit.

"What it definitely says is that early onset occasional cannabis use is a marker for being more likely to be engaging in a whole range of drug use behaviours in young adulthood."

Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive Joe Tucci urged parents not to allow their children to experiment with cannabis.

"Patterns of behaviour start early in children, so these habits can be very hard to break. Cannabis can cause lots of detrimental impacts all the way through to psychosis as you get older, so the perception of cannabis as a softer, harmless drug is not right."

The article opens with, “Parents have been warned to take a tough line on teenagers who smoke cannabis, with research showing even occasional use can lead to alcoholism and harder drugs”. It’s the use of the word, “lead” that completely changes the findings of the study. The report from The Royal College of Psychiatrists does not claim this at all but instead says it’s an indicator of future behaviour.

Conclusion: Occasional adolescent cannabis use predicts later drug use and educational problems.

--The British Journal of Psychiatry - Outcomes Of Occasional Cannabis Use In Adolescence: 10-Year Follow-Up Study In Victoria, Australia

Not only is the reader disingenuously led to believe that these future problems are actually caused by early cannabis use but over half of the article highlights the scary outcome of what may happen to those young users. These tactics are downright misleading and reminiscent of Murdoch’s tabloid journalism. 

Even more worrying is the supposed response by Dr. Louisa Degenhardt, who headed up the study. 

Lead author Louisa Degenhardt, from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW, said the study highlighted the need for early intervention to stop children taking up the habit.

Sydney Morning Herald - Cannabis 'Leads To Drink, Hard Drugs'

This is what she actually said:

The reason why this is important is because most young people only ever engage in occasional cannabis use. What it definitely says is that early onset occasional cannabis use is a marker for being more likely to be engaging in a whole range of drug use behaviours in young adulthood. 'Where you're talking about drugs that are not legal, if you're using one illegal drug you're probably going to have greater opportunity to use and know more people who are using other illicit drugs as well.

The reasons for this association between occasional adolescent cannabis use and higher levels of drug use in young adulthood are unclear. Considerable debate is ongoing about the reasons why this is the case. It seems clear that in countries such as Australia, where cannabis use is the norm among young people, even infrequent cannabis use is related to later levels of drug use of all kinds. Whether this is due to learning processes, the influence of social networks or other factors, it is still the case that early onset occasional cannabis use is a marker for later drug use and drug problems.

--Prof. Louisa Degenhardt - Study Author

And this from The Age:

Professor Degenhardt called for caution in interpreting the study's results, saying it was unclear if cannabis was a ''gateway'' drug.

--The Age - Odd Puff Of Dope At 13 Can Lead To Hard Drugs

Mmm. A few issues here. Firstly, why does Fairfax dish up a casuistic, misleading article in the Sydney Morning Herald but print a slightly more balanced version in The Age? Secondly, the study revealed that cannabis use in early teens is a “marker” not a cause for risky behaviour in later years. Even Dr. Louisa Degenhardt herself warned of misinterpreting the results as a possible “gateway” to harder drugs and other associated problems. This was completely missing from the Sydney Morning Herald article.

Parents need to realise that even occasional use of so-called recreational drugs is really the first step in a slippery slope. Patterns of behaviour start early in children, so these habits can be very hard to break. '[Parents] need to monitor their children's behaviour and monitor whether they're using even so-called 'soft' drugs. Cannabis can cause lots of detrimental impacts all the way through to psychosis as you get older, so the perception of cannabis as a softer, harmless drug is not right.

-- Joe Tucci - Chief Executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation

I am wondering what the purpose was of including the generic, anti-drug comment from the Australian Childhood Foundation? I’m sure the comment, “Cannabis can cause lots of detrimental impacts all the way through to psychosis as you get older, so the perception of cannabis as a softer, harmless drug is not right” has been uttered several times previously and will be re-quoted several more times, regardless of the NDARC study. The comments from Joe Tucci might be irrelevant to the article and just fluff to flesh out the story but that’s not how Kate Devlin, the Medical Correspondent at The Telegraph saw it. Not only did her article include the same misleading interpretation of the study but included Joe Tucci’s “slippery slope” comment in quotation marks as if it was part of an official response.

Occasional Cannabis Use 'Can Lead Teenagers To Become Addicted To Harder Drugs'
By Kate Devlin - Medical Correspondent 

The Telegraph (UK) 

They found that the drug could be a “slippery slope” to using other illicit substances.

Although frequent cannabis users were the most likely to go on to try other drugs, youngsters were at increased risk even if they used the drug only occasionally. The 10 year study followed 2,000 secondary school students, who were all aged either 13 or 14 at the start of the research. Professor Louisa Degenhardt, from New South Wales University, who led the research team, said: "Our study found a dose-response relationship where those students who used cannabis regularly when they were teenagers were most likely to have adverse outcomes in early adulthood.

"However, even those students who only used cannabis occasionally in their teenage years faced a higher risk of drug problems in adulthood too."

The findings, published in the British Journal of Psychology, show that infrequent users were three times more likely to have tried harder drugs by the time they were in their 20s. But teens who used the drug on a weekly basis were 12 times more likely. One in three of the youngsters admitted that they used cannabis regularly.

Trash journalism and drug hysteria must be catchy

The Result of a Quiet News Day? - It’s Not Pretty

Ecstasy Tablets Kills More Australians
CourierMail
By Lisa Mayoh
January 2010

MORE than 100 young Australians have died after taking ecstasy in the eight years to 2008, The Sunday Mail can reveal.

A ground-breaking report into the use of the drug, whose scientific name is MDMA, shows it claimed 82 Australian lives over five years from 2000 – and fatalities are increasing.

Conducted by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the study into MDMA-related deaths in Australia is the biggest and most comprehensive analysis to date, and has prompted calls for further research into its prevalence.

Additional figures obtained by The Sunday Mail show another 23 people died from 2006 to 2008, which is considered to be an "under-representation" due to many cases still under investigation.

Of those, 10 deaths were reported in 2006, seven in 2007 and six in 2008, with 65 per cent of victims aged between 20-29 and more than 70 per cent male.

More than 80 per cent of the deaths were unintentional and 15 of the 23 victims took other drugs along with the MDMA, including cannabis or alcohol.

In the earlier cases examined by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, 91 per cent of the deaths were directly caused by drug toxicity and MDMA was the sole drug involved in a quarter of cases. It also contributed to a number of drownings, cardiovascular conditions and car accidents.

Funded by the federal Department of Health and Ageing, the report found the median age of fatalities was 26, with the youngest victim aged 17 and the oldest being 58.

"While reports of MDMA-related death are far less common than those of opioid, amphetamine and cocaine, the number of MDMA-related deaths appears to be increasing," the study said.

Always keen to publish a good scary drug story, the CourierMail pounced on a report from the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) into the increased use of ecstasy(MDMA). With the report disclosing drug related deaths, the frenzied journalist knew she had a scorcher on her hands. So out it came, chock full of statistics about how dangerous MDMA is. The headline screamed - Ecstasy Tablets Kills More Australians.

A closer look though revealed some interesting abnormalities.

... and MDMA was the sole drug involved in a quarter of cases...
... and 15 of the 23 victims took other drugs along with the MDMA, ...

So, MDMA alone wasn’t responsible for 100 deaths over the last 8 years to 2008 but about 25 or so. That’s 3 deaths per year which pales into insignificance when compared to alcohol that kills about 3,300 per year. The mortality rate for MDMA exclusively is less than Asprin, Panadol, falling out of bed, falling off a ladder, disease of the middle ear, drowning in the bath tub, riding a bike or horse etc. With millions of pills taken each month, there is bound to be some who are allergic to or have a bad reaction to MDMA so the annual rate of about 3 deaths is very low for a drug this popular. Added to this is the unknown dose that was taken. They could all be overdoses from taking several pills at once.

And something else was amiss. Why does the NDARC report only represent the years 2000 - 2005? Where did the “Additional figures obtained by The Sunday Mail” come from? Where is the original NDARC report and what is the title?

Trying to find the ground-breaking report was no easy feat without a title. It must be somewhere because the article hinted that there was imminent danger with a warning that MDMA had taken 82 Australian lives over five years from 2000 – and fatalities are increasing. Where was this important report that prompted an article in the CourierMail? Where do I look? Searching NDARC and the Federal Department of Health and Ageing websites for something that had no name was not getting me anywhere fast and Google was bringing back millions of results. Then I finally found a link to the report at the NDARC website. At last!

I received this error:

General Error
HTTP Web Server: Lotus Notes Exception - Entry not found in index

POOP!

After a while, I eventually found the report at a science journal but it required a paid membership or subscription to read the full text. No wonder the CourierMail didn’t name the report: Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-related fatalities in Australia: Demographics, circumstances, toxicology and major organ pathology. [link]

Luckily, an abstract was available which gave me some insight into the report. My conclusion ... why did the CourierMail publish an article in January 2010 when the report came out in July 2009? This wasn’t a recent report at all and was submitted for peer review 12 months ago. To top it off, it only covered 2000-2005. WTF?

I’m really interested to know why the author, Lisa Mayoh and the CourierMail went to so much trouble to produce only 5 sentences about this obscure report? The fact is that the CourierMail article relied on additional information to provide the bulk of the statistics. So the question still remains ... why was this article printed in January 2010 when the ground-breaking report is a year old relating to data from 2000 - 2005? Was it a quiet news day or just another attempt by the CourierMail drudge up a scary drug story?

Funnily enough, I happened to find the link via a search on the same page as other NDARC articles from Jan Copeland and Paul Dillion, both from the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre (NCPIC). In case you don’t know, NCPIC is part of NDARC and also a prohibitionist mouthpiece for the government trying to maintain the public scare campaign on cannabis. If you read the abstract, you will see the similarities.

On a side issue, whilst searching for the elusive report, I did come across other studies that were much more important and news worthy than a report giving statistics 5-10 years ago. I suppose, scary drug stories are the forte of Murdoch’s trashy media enterprise so there’s not much chance of a rational, positive article being published about the report below?

Is Ecstasy A Drug Of Dependence?
October 2009
This paper examines the evidence for an MDMA or “ecstasy” dependence syndrome. Animal evidence suggests that MDMA may be a less potent reinforcer than other drugs, but that it does have dependence potential. This suggests that (a) ecstasy dependence might be less likely than dependence upon other drugs; and (b) factors related to the behavioural and psychological aspects of reward and dependence may make a relatively greater contribution for ecstasy than for other drugs, where physically centred (and better understood) features of dependence may be more salient. Human evidence supports this proposition. Some people report problems with their use, but the literature suggests that physical features play a more limited role than psychological ones. Tolerance is apparent, and withdrawal is self-reported, but it is unclear whether these reports distinguish sub-acute effects of ecstasy intoxication from symptoms reflective of neuroadaptive processes underlying a “true” withdrawal syndrome. Studies examining the structure of dependence upon ecstasy suggest it may be different from drugs such as alcohol, methamphetamine and opioids. Consistent with studies of hallucinogens, a two-factor structure has been identified with factors suggestive of “compulsive use” and “escalating use”. Regardless of the nature of any dependence syndrome, however, there is evidence to suggest that a minority of ecstasy users become concerned about their use and seek treatment. Further controlled studies are required to investigate this phenomenon.

SOURCE:
Is Ecstasy A Drug Of Dependence?
Louisa Degenhardt - National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales
Raimondo Bruno - School of Psychology, University of Tasmania
Libby Topp - Centre for Health Research in Criminal Justice
Available online 15 October 2009.

Related Articles:
Did They Really Say That? Part 1 - The Media
CourierMail - Cocaine Hysteria Thrives in Trash Media
Will The Daily Telegraph Writer Who Wrote This Crap Please Own Up
Drug Reporting in the MSM - They Just Get Sillier and Sillier
CourierMail - The Media Scourge