Harm Minimisation - The Christian Thing To Do

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

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

UK Gov: How Dare You Tell the Truth about Ecstasy ... Apologise Now!

According to the British Government, telling the truth might not be the right thing to do. Last month, Professor David Nutt, chairman of the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) wrote in a medical journal that “Taking the drug ecstasy is no more dangerous than riding a horse”. Although it’s a fact it still caused outrage throughout the UK including from the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.

She [Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith] demanded an apology and told the professor that his comments went beyond the scientific advice she expected from him. "I've spoken to him. I've told him that I was surprised and profoundly disappointed," Smith told MPs yesterday. She said they made light of a serious problem, trivialised the dangers of drugs, showed insensitivity to the families of victims, and sent the wrong message to young people.

Smith's attack on Nutt, the new chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, comes when this week it will publish a report expected to recommend downgrading ecstasy from class A to class B. Smith has made clear she will veto the council's view as she rejected its advice last year not to reclassify cannabis.

Lib Dem MP Evan Harris complained to the Speaker at Smith's attack, describing Nutt as a "distinguished scientist" unable to answer back in parliament for what was set out in a scientific publication. His article in the Journal of Psychopharmacology was written before he became chairman, but picked up in the weekend press.
-The Guardian - Drugs adviser says sorry over ecstasy article

This reaction from UK Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith is disgraceful on several fronts. First of all, the statement was part of an article published in the Journal of Psychopharmacology last month and was only recently reported in the news. Secondly, since when does a government official publicly criticise a professor for the contents of a scientific paper? More importantly, why was professor Nutt demanded to make an apology for telling the truth?

Professor Nutt did offer an apology but didn’t backtrack on his statement. He apologised saying he had "no intention of trivialising the dangers of ecstasy" and "I am sorry to those who may have been offended by my article. I would like to apologise to those who have lost friends and family due to ecstasy use". Some media reports jokingly questioned why Professor Nutt was not also made to apologised to those who had lost friends and family from horse riding.

According to Nutt, a Scottish study suggests that one reason for ecstasy's "peculiarly prominent place" within the media dates back to the 1990s, when every single ecstasy-related death was covered in detailed by the Scottish press while far fewer other drug-related deaths were reported.

The mental health effects are said to be relatively few in both the short and long term, with few people becoming dependent. The ACMD also concludes that those who take ecstasy are not commonly seen to become violent or engage in behaviour that leads to public order offences.
-The Guardian - Government criticised over refusal to downgrade ecstasy

To make matters worse, Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith declared she would veto the council’s recommendation of downgrading ecstasy from class A to class B even before the findings were officially released. This bizarre behaviour has raised many concerns about why the government has spent millions of dollars on a report they are going to dismiss if it doesn’t fit in with their particular ideology or current policies. For Jacqui Smith to declare that she was going to veto the report regardless of the evidence or the facts before she even reads it is shameful. Is this how the government was intended to be run?

The prime minister's strategy unit reported last year that current drug policy was failing - so the government sought to suppress the report. The independent RSA Commission, after two years painstakingly investigating drug policy, recommended more emphasis on harm reduction - and was ignored.
-The Guardian - We need a sensible debate about drugs - but that's impossible while ministers float above it all

This is the second ACMD report commissioned by the UK government that has been tossed aside and rejected. The first report recommended that cannabis stay downgraded as a class C drug but that was rejected by the government after being implemented in 2004. With many fearing that cannabis use would explode when it was first downgraded, the level of use actually dropped whilst it was a class C drug. There was no reason what-so-ever for a reclassification back up to class B. In fact it should have been reason enough to accept more AMCD recommendations especially the down grading of ecstasy. With ecstasy use rising under the current A classification, what did they have to lose? The answer is irrelevant as we have seen evidence and facts have no bearing on government policy decisions. It’s the usual case of “sending the wrong message” being more important than people’s lives.

We don't need to see things with our own eyes to believe them; we're not Neanderthals. But we do need to be assured that advice is evidence-based, that the authorities haven't just ignored the evidence and gone ahead anyway. I contend that the negative consequences of this mummy-knows-best approach have already gone beyond the world of class C drugs. I bet this is why so many young people have stopped using condoms and are getting syphilis.
-The Guardian - Mum doesn't know best

What will happen to drug use levels as a result of the governments refusal to reclassify ecstasy? Remember that this recommendation is only to lower the classification of ecstasy not to legalise it. There would still be harsh penalties of up to 5 years jail for possession. By doing nothing, it seems logical that ecstasy use will continue on it’s merry way.

The Runciman Report of 2000, for example, suggested that ecstasy may be several thousand times less dangerous than heroin – despite both being class A drugs – with ecstasy users exhibiting little or no evidence of the withdrawal symptoms usually associated with physical dependency. The home affairs select committee's 2002 report The government's drug policy – is it working? estimated that fewer than 10 people died a year from taking ecstasy, 3% of the number of deaths attributed to heroin. Both reports recommended the downgrading of ecstasy from class A to class B, and both were rejected on the grounds that reclassification would be irresponsible.
-The Guardian - Severe side effects of drug policy

The UK continue with the dubious record of having the highest rate of illicit drug use in Europe along with some of the harshest penalties and toughest policing. It’s obvious their “tough on drugs” approach isn’t working but the UK government refuses to listen to alternative strategies recommended by experts. Government arrogance is nothing new but repeating the same old policies over and over expecting a different result is just stupidity. More importantly, it costs lives and creates massive suffering which appears to be overlooked by the media and the government themselves.


Related Links:
Top Drug Advisor - Ecstasy is Safe as Riding a Horse
Drugs adviser says sorry over ecstasy article
Government criticised over refusal to downgrade ecstasy
Severe side effects of drug policy
We need a sensible debate about drugs - but that's impossible while ministers float above it all
Home secretary rejects advice to downgrade ecstasy

GBH, Ecstasy, Overdoses and Raves - Australian Style

Reactions to GBH overdoses at the X-Qlusive dance party in Melbourne.

How many hospitalised people or deaths do we have to have before some politician is brave enough to do something? And I mean something constructive and not just the political gabber of being tough on drugs or increasing penalties. Instead, the reactions so far have been childish and self-serving with knee jerk responses calling for changes that have no chance of success. Declaring war on rave operators is exactly the sort of response that does nothing except give the perception that tough measures are being taken. We must start to ask ourselves if the government strategies are simply the same old thing over and over again and what do they expect will happen differently this time around? Are they so blind to the constant failures that have got us to where we are today or is taking a different more pragmatic approach just political suicide and will never be considered? The only constant is that people will always take drugs. When will the government concede to this fact and we realise the decisions of our so called leaders will determine how many will overdose, suffer or die?

Crackdown on rave parties after dozens overdose on GBH 

HeraldSun 

-John Ferguson and Alice Coster 

December 2008 

THE Brumby Government has declared war on rogue rave operators after more than 30 people suffered life-threatening drug overdoses at a Festival Hall dance party. 

Rave-party organisers with bad records who allow drugs to flourish at their events will be denied permits under tough new sanctions planned for the industry. Permits will be harder to get for other operators after dozens of party-goers fell seriously ill at the X-clusive rave, which finished early yesterday. 

A bad batch of the killer drug GHB, also known as GBH or Grievous Bodily Harm, was blamed for the emergency. Twelve party-goers were taken to city hospitals in a serious condition, while others were taken to emergency departments by friends. They suffered fits, breathing problems, dehydration and hyperthermia - a heat-related illness that also can kill. 

Consumer Affairs Minister Tony Robinson issued a warning to the dance party industry through the Herald Sun. "If promoters are out there running events that are unsafe, then they are going to find it a lot harder to get a permit in the future," he said. 

"I'm putting them on notice." 

Ambulance officers were overwhelmed as they ferried party-goers to the Royal Melbourne and Alfred hospitals during Saturday night. It took eight paramedics and ambulance staff to restrain one man. Ambulance officers are alarmed the toxic batch of GHB has arrived as the music festival season gets into full swing. 

Next week's Sensation party at Telstra Dome is expected to attract tens of thousands of party-goers. 

Mr Robinson said the number of casualties on Saturday was unacceptable. "I expect, and I think the community expects, that if these events are going to be held, they are done so in an environment that is safe for the people who are attending," he said. 

"I'll be having private discussions with the Director of Liquor Licensing this week about tougher sanctions and stricter permit conditions but this is a warning that they are on notice." 

GHB claimed its first fatality in Victoria in 2005 when nurse Belinda Davey died in a drug dealer's car outside a city dance club. 

Ambulance Victoria operations manager Paul Holman warned it was only a matter of time before another party-goer died. "This is a very dangerous drug," he said. 

"It can absolutely kill you and there are recorded deaths from it. It's called grievous bodily harm and that's what it does to you. 

"The seriousness of some of these people that presented themselves on Saturday night really concerned us and it's only a matter of time before we get a death." 

Director of Drug and Alcohol Research and Education Australia, Paul Dillon, said GHB was a lethal drug. 

"It can kill, and has killed. People are really playing Russian roulette with their lives." 

Dozens of party-goers were taken to hospital after two rave parties at Kryal Castle last year. 

Police Inspector David Blencowe denied suggestions police should have shut down Saturday night's event. Up to 2000 party-goers filled Festival Hall for the drug-fuelled dance party. 

Police face a huge task on New Year's Eve for the Sensation event. "Certainly with an event like that I would imagine there would be significant police resources deployed and there would be a number of proactive steps taken, as well as trying to actually police the event," he said. 

Organisers of Sensation distanced themselves from Saturday night's emergency. "Sensation has asked people not to take drugs and are doing anything police and safety officers have asked," spokeswoman Erin Jameson said. 

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle slammed irresponsible rave-party operators. "You don't give permits to people for these rave parties unless they can show us a great track record in managing large numbers of kids at a rave party," he said.

You may have noticed that some official responses and some of the MSM made disingenuous attempts to beef up the event. For example, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle linked in “kids” to the adult only event. News.com reported one person who had to be held down by 8 ambulance officers without mentioning he was fitting, referred to the event as “the drug-fuelled dance party”, insinuated GBH was still commonly used as an acronym for the scary titled, “Grievous Bodily Harm” instead of being the technical abbreviation for gamma hydroxybutyrate and highlighted a 21-year-old rave partygoer as some sort of expert with his quote, "Nine out of ten people were on something”. Some officials made ridiculous comments like declaring war on “rogue” rave operators and "I'm putting them on notice" referring to the dance party industry. Many of the overdoses from the X-Qlusive dance party could have been avoided with simple pragmatic strategies but in this climate of drug hysteria, these ideas fall on deaf ears. It’s that old problem of “sending the wrong message” being more important than the safety of users. One result is that GBH, which doesn’t have a good reputation in the dance scene compared to the relatively harmless ecstasy, has grown in popularity due to the increasing use of police sniffer dogs who can’t detect GBH. There’s no doubt that street GBH can be a nasty drug. Most GBH sold on the streets is actually GBL which takes longer to act so often users will take a second dose when the effect doesn’t kick in as expected. There is a fine line between safe doses which is made even more dangerous by back yard operations. Like most illicit drugs, GBH when taken in moderation and at the right dose, is relatively harmless. When abused or used in conjunction with other drugs, it can become lethal. 

...in order to metabolise GHB the body utilises the same enzyme responsible for breaking down alcohol – thus when consumed along with alcohol the effects are vastly magnified – and can, in some cases, be fatal. GHB in combination with other sedative drugs is also liable to produce severe and possibly life threatening side-effects. 

-Steve Robinson. Community Development Coordinator - WA Substance Users Association (WASUA)

The increase in the use of GBH is another side effect from prohibition and zero tolerance policies. The incredible lack of understanding by policy makers has repeatedly caused more damage than good over the last 100 years. The influence of hardcore anti-drugs groups has created an environment of fear in their attempt to moralise a social and health issue by insisting that governments take on their ideology of a drug free world. 

Although history repeats itself constantly with one failure after another, the fear of losing public support or being classed as “soft on drugs” undermine all attempts at actually solving the problem. In the process of demonising another relatively harmless drug, ecstasy, more lethal, cheaper and undetectable replacements become popular. As we have seen with party drugs, the focus on ecstasy was replaced by methamphetamine hysteria and now that has given way to GBH so now there are three problems. GBL might become the next problem to replace GBH and the cycle continues. 

If ecstasy use was first dealt with a rational, scientific approach then maybe we might not have had the GBH/GBL overdoses at the X-Qlusive event. Most problems with ecstasy use stem not from the drug itself but from dehydration and alcohol. When there were ingredient problems, it was almost always because of contaminants or the lack of the key ingredient, MDMA. MDMA has very little harms associated with it’s usage but unregulated backyard operations are free to use any ingredients that suit their profit margins or because of the availability of precursor chemicals. In a vain attempt to disrupt the ecstasy market, the police managed to encourage a glut of low quality ecstasy pills and an increase in user problems arose. This led to some groups offering to test ecstasy pills at raves with the intention to inform users exactly what they were taking. This simple but effective idea prompted some potential users to dump their pills in bins provided and allowed problem users to get medical help. This approach did not judge users but allowed them to make informed decisions with the option of treatment. It’s no surprise that the government threatened criminal action against these medical groups and users were again left to guess what was in their pills. Once again, “sending the wrong message” was deemed more important than people’s safety. SA Democrat, Sandra Kanck once suggested pill testing at raves but was heavily criticised by resident SA nutter, Anne Bressington and other self righteous pollies. This attitude towards ecstasy has led to even more condemnation of the drug than previously although it is still medically regarded as much safer than alcohol. 

A recent scientific classification of various drugs ranked ecstasy at 18 out of 20 for harmfulness which lagged significantly behind alcohol at number 5. The list, published in the medical journal, The Lancet rated ecstasy less harmful than drugs like barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol, ketamine, Valium, Xanax, amphetamines, tobacco, cannabis, solvents, LSD and anabolic steroids. 

On a positive note, many readers of the above and related articles had alternative views to the usual array of inhumane and sick comments found on News.com websites (including the HeraldSun, the Daily Telegraph, Adelaide Advertiser, the CourierMail etc.). Nearly half of the comments were cynical of official/government responses and critical of cruel and nasty comments from other readers. Many readers pointed out the inconsistencies with the public perception of alcohol abuse and the acceptance of drunken behaviour. Others questioned the logic of current laws which drive the black market. It is somewhat of a surprise to see so many sensible comments coming from News.com readers who typically feed on sensational, moralising like hungry pigs at a trough. 

I hope more overdose and die because of it. My house and neighbors were robbed by a couple of the druggies, our hearts have since frozen. If those young people want to throw their lives away, so be it and they are the ones facing the consequence.  

Posted by: Joe of Camberwell

There were 4 main points raised by readers that had something useful to say. I have taken some of the best comments and classed them accordingly. As usual though, some readers gave insight into how uneducated they are to the subject they have such strong opinions about. It seems that propaganda about drugs is still as powerful as ever and much of the public eat it up so willingly. In fact, most negative comments were based on myths and misconceptions so I have included some of these comments under the topic below called Myths. 

1 - Limiting choices 

Unfortunately this is yet another example of the "success" of Police technology - while Police can detect ecstacy, cannibis and methamphetamines with their random drug-driver tests, sniffer dogs etc, they cannot detect GHB. If one of those ravers was determined to take something, and knew there would be a possible big Police presence around town with booze/drug buses, what do you think that raver would choose to take? It's an unfortunate outcome, but until the Police can find a way to detect this GHB scourge of a drug, there cannot be an surprises when people choose to take and consequently overdose on a cheap nasty alternative. 

Posted by: Mike of Melbourne 

Anyone taking GHB in a recreational setting is deep enough into the 'scene' to know that it's extremely dangerous in high doses (you can go from having a ball to being dead in a few drops). I would put money on people taking what they thought was a standard amount only to find out it is from a particularly strong/uncut batch, but that's what you get when you buy stuff of black markets. 

Posted by: Steve of Sydney

2 - Street Quality vs. Pharmaceutical Quality 

Maybe if we legalised drugged so that they could be made in a quality assured fashion, given in safe doses and managed in an appropriate fashion like alcohol this wouldn't happen. The taboo and stigma surrounding recreational drugs in modern society, when we claim to have progressed so much, is ridiculous. Most religions and cultural changes came fromt he shamanic and trance like states induced by natural drugs that were used by the clerics, tribal rituals and priests. Drugs that alter your mind set have played a much bigger rold in the way we as humans have developed than they are given credit for. I'd much rather my kid go out for a night knowing it is ok if they get in trouble to call the ambulance or their parents for help than dying in a drug induced haze in a dodegy lane or venue. Stop blaming the people and the drugs, and start working on the problem from a holistic point, in that it is now a big party of the party cultures in Australia and we need to work with people to prevent these things happening rather than casting blame and causing dangerous illicit home made batches to be sold and to kill. What if a bad batch of beer went out and made 40 people sick? would that be a waste of tax $$$ money to get them to hospital? should they go tor prison for selling or drinking it? should beer then be benned? It's just as much a recreational drug as dope, LSD, GHB or xtc! Posted by: Tom Jerry It is rediculous to think that there is a "cure" for the drug problem. Look at the statistics people, there are more people using party drugs than ever before. Problem is, there seem to be more "bad batches" now than ever before. Why? because drug supply is completely unregulated. We will continue to hear of these horror stories, and I hate to say, deaths due to "bad batches". Get your head out of the sand!!! legalise ecstacy and stop risking our kids lives with who knows what! 

Posted by: John 

Society has always wanted to get wasted. the effects of alcohol, cannabis, opium, etc. have been known for thousands of years and people have got high from them ever since. The USA proved that prohibition is a spectacular failure and detrimental to society at large, not just the drinkers, and the same applies to every other drug. if they were all made by pharmacutical companies and obtainable only with a perscription from your GP to treat "addiction" or what ever than overdoses would be a thing of the past. getting chemically pure drugs that have been issued based on your age, weight, size, etc. will give people the high they desire under much safer conditions. doctors, pharacutical companies and the government would all get paid then instead of drug dealers and the end user will be much safer because of it... 

Posted by: lee of maitland

3 - Demand 

Interesting analysis Joey. However, you should also be aware that the type of drugs you are referring to have and inelastic supply which basically means that as the price goes up, demand will not drop off too dramatically ie, there will always be a high demand regardless of the price. Same goes with alcohol, tobacco, petrol etc, etc. If it was as simply as you suggest (ie have much harsher penalties), then why do you suppose that people are sitting in prison on death row in some countries, even though the penalty for drug offences could not be any harsher. At the extreme, excessive drug taking should be seen as a health issue, rather than a criminal one. But anyway, the whole 'war on drugs' is much more complicated and sinister than you'd imagine but good luck discusssing that here even if there is a mountain of documented evidence which supports the shocking claims. 

Posted by: War of knowledge 

Notice how most of the damage done here is from the drug comeing from the black market? The exact same thing happened in America when they banned alcohol. Bootleggers would pass off metho as regular alcohol, and many people got sick from it. 

Posted by: Jak of Caboolture 

I agree with Jeremy. If you want to limit the chances of death and the pressure on hospitals then legalise drugs so they are regulated and you can charge tax on them - we will have a LOT more tax funds then. You will NEVER stop the world from taking drugs. 

Posted by: Elly of Another Party 

9/10 people were not on drugs this is a massive exageration. Out of the group of people who do partake in recreational drug use the vast majority take one or two "ecstacy" pills and cause no harm to anyone, all those people on their high horses should realise that it is them contributing to the problem by making these people feel like criminals which causes them to take greater risks when consuming them. It is only a small few who use substances such as GHB and I bet alot of them dont understand the risks. Education is required and for this to happen people need to feel its something they can openely discuss with medical proffesionals and even police. Proabition didn't work in the past and it wont work now. I would much rather be around a group of "criminals" who take a couple of pills and go for a good night than a group of violent, drunken idiots that seem to be accepted as part of our society. 

Posted by: Dean Cook

4 - Hypocrisy 

Alcohol is responsible for more assaults, violence, and crime in general than any other drug..... and hence costs the taxpayer more as well.... legalise drugs and let the gov' regulate it.... u cannot win this war, so how about we make sure they are all good batches and tax the hell out of it too....... and btw i was a drug user and held a steady job for 15 years - like a lot of people i know i grew out of it, and because i wasnt ever caught and treated like a low life criminal scum, i'm still working, and ive paid a lot of tax, so nah!!! oh and i love my rum now, so i dont really care, just dont make booze illegal.... 

Posted by: waz 

Heh. Listen to all you people up on your high horse. Whinging about valuable tax $ being wasted on these youths. How many of you are overweight?,how many of you drink to excess? then get behind the wheel? (even just a "little" bit over) How many of you smoke? These are also self-inflicted. What kind of strain will you put on the hospitable system. Perhaps we should have just denied them emergency attention and let them die. It's not like tax $ are being spent on some sailor who was on a self-inflicted trip. Hmm? Sure, drugs are illegal, and so they should be. But that's not going to stop people from taking them. The problem remains. AS does your bad behaviour. Hypocrites. 

Posted by: bill 

Either using drugs to alter you mind is alright, or it is not. The choice of which drugs, alcahol, cannibis, MDMA, GHB is a secondary issue. In the end of the day anyone who has ever got drunk is a drug user. They are drinking ethanol (yep, the same stuff that goes into cars as fuel) to change their perception of reality. GHB (oftern GBL in Aus) is a cleaning solvent. Explain to me how drinking car fuel is somehow morally superiour to drinking cleaning sovent? 

Posted by: Doug of Sydney 

Drugs aren't the problem, the people using them are. Same goes for alcohol and smoking. Educate the people and let them decide for themselves instead of making the decisions for them. Maybe everyone should look at the statistics of alcohol related, ciggarette related and fatty food related deaths as compared to illicit drug related deaths. Insanely 1 sided. 

Posted by: Drugs for you !!! of You backyard 

What a surprise. On one article we have many commenters praising a television star for getting "very hammered" in public, yet in another article we have a bunch of sparse anti-drug comments, despite the fact GHB was the only drug mentioned. Morever, GHB has a similar function to alcohol, that is, it is a depressant and intoxicant. Why should we shun one group of people for practically taking a similar action (to get intoxicated, "drunk") whilst praise another for doing the VERY same thing? Illegality aside, this is just moronic. 

Posted by: Charles Buddington

5 - Myths 

I read an interesting report on the cost of policing drugs in NSW which made me very angry - this money could have been spent policing real crime i.e. assaults, thefts and murder. What makes me even angrier is seeing the strong link between the incidence of assaults and the use of drugs - why do we tolerate these drugs in our society when there is such a strong and undeniable link to violence!!! This cost doesn't even begin to take into account the real cost these fools impose on our paramedics and hospitals. I agree about rapid and large scale enorcement - immediate incarceration for those appearing in public under the influence of drugs - like that fool from television. Take it off the streets, it is not acceptable. 

Posted by: Disgusted of Brisbane 

In stead of blaming the Police why don't you people cast the blame directly where it belongs, on the drug trafficers, pushers and users, and the permissiveness of society and parents nowadays, and the declining values and morals. The youth that engage in the practice of dealing in or takings drugs are a scourge to communities, forever looking for new ways to gratify themselves to get their kicks out of life. Drug taking goes hand in hand with the elevation of crime, to feed their habit. To Ross Morris of Torwood, and the other condoners of narcotics usage Hello!!! drug users ARE criminals, unless you are completely naive, drugs are ILLEGAL. 

Posted by: Aussie Kate of Oregon USA 

i agree with 'joey of melbourne' (comment 17) - we need to start cutting the demand because the current system aint working. If Rudd needs some capital works projects to sink some money into, then i have the perfect solution - BUILD MORE JAILS - and throw these loser drug takers in the slammer for possession or being under the influence Posted by: Glen of Gold Coast Interesting to here Police Inspector Blencowe put this issue in the too hard basket. Drugs are illegal, a venue with thousands of drug affected people in it is in breach of its conditions and his response is it is not in the best interest of drug addicts to close the party. Amazing Inspector! So if I get a couple of thousand people together for a vandalism spree or a shoplifting session will that be ok too..???? Enforce the law, thats your job. Shut down the venues and stop providing a market place for drug dealers. For all you idiots that think drugs are safe if you can't see the correlation between massive increases in crime and drug use perhaps you should clean yourself up for a change and have a look around you. 

Posted by: brendan of melbourne 

[...] From my experience, many of those that do take drugs were the ones that always had problems with discipline in high school. If they use drugs now, then their parents did a crap job, simple. 

Posted by: Interesting of Melbourne 

I'd like to say to those people spending huge amounts of money each year on drugs, why don't you have a think about those people suffering in the world who can't afford food, medication or a place to sleep. Compare that to the chemicals, physical and mental harm and burden on society drugs create and see which on is more deserving.... 

Posted by: Maree from Brisbane 

The problem with the drug epedemic is in the basics of markets. The authorities attack supply, with a lack of effort given to the demand side of the equation. Basic economies tell us markets are driven by demand v supply. But, governments through police attempt to target supply, which simply put means demand (and price, a further detrimental effect on society) to go up. Basic free markets tell us the way to cut supply is to cut demand - that is, the drug user. All the emphasis on the suppliers (dealers) is a waste of time without ever more effort placed on demand. If you put a mandatory jail sentance of 1 year or more on any person found under the influence of an illicit drug, demand will drop like a lead balloon. Then what happens? Supply decreases as the margins on the product deminish, to a point whereby it is no longer economical to produce/supply the stuff. You attack supply through demand, not demand through supply. Look up a basic supply v demand graph. In short, the authorities have it back to front, and wonder why they are going nowhere with it. Mandatory jail sentances for this idiots who OD - that will deter a potential user 100x more than a slap on the wrist. 

Posted by: joey of Melbourne 

What a waste of time and good use of a public service that is struggling to keep afloat .The ambulance service - should have been available for accidents - that are not related to drug choices being made by mindless kids. They are risking their own lives - and it is their own choice. By having ambulances attend they also risk the lives of responsible people who need the services of the ambulance - when and where required. Make the rave party organisers accountable for such medical attention without having to rely on the public service. You play with death - and you deserve to be killed.. Mindless - selfish - twits 

Posted by: kon of Melbourne

The Unwinnable War On Dickheads

I give up!

How many times do the Liberal Party have to hear it? The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs” was rejected by the vast majority of experts in health, in welfare, in Australia, on the whole bloody planet. Banging on about it is futile and frankly, embarrassing. You had your shot and failed ... the war was lost. We are still counting the bodies whilst those actually qualified are working furiously to analyse how to prevent it happening again. You introduced “Tough on Drugs”, the Australian version of the "War on Drugs" and it was a massive failure. Your general, AFP commissioner, Mick Keelty conceded defeat. Your commander and chief, John Howard was dismissed and Colonel Bronwyn Bishop was banished to sanitary duties. My advice ... take a hint.

What About The Winnable War On Drugs Prime Minister?
www.liberal.org.au

Senator Mathias Cormann
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration

24th November 2008

Kevin Rudd needs to commit to the ‘war on drugs’, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration Mathias Cormann said today.

“In his first year in office the Prime Minister has been leading a ‘war’ on just about everything,” Senator Cormann said. “Why is it then that his Government has abandoned the critically important war on drugs?” he asked.

“More than a year after the release of the comprehensive House of Representatives Committee report “The winnable war on drugs – The impact of illicit drug use on families” the Rudd Government still has not provided any response to the Parliament,” Senator Cormann said.

“In the Government’s propaganda paper on its first year in office the battle faced by too many families against the enemy of drug abuse hardly rates a mention. The time for more Committees and reviews on the challenge of drug abuse is over. This is the time to make decisions and take action.

“We need decisions focused on winning the war, not on helping the enemy gain more strength.

“The story in today’s Daily Telegraph is a shocking demonstration of how a completely misguided harm minimisation approach by Labor in NSW is failing young people and their families.

“Our children don’t need lessons on how to use harmful and illicit drugs. They need to get the clear message that drugs are bad,” Senator Cormann said.

“Of course we have to provide effective treatment to anyone with a drug problem – but it should never ever be done in a way that normalises drug use.

“Any parent would be shocked and horrified to read the advice that has been circulated to children in NSW schools, including comments such as:

If you don’t already have a reliable dealer, try to find one and stick with them;

When you’re using a new batch (of speed) only try a little at first - you can always use the rest later if you need to.

Budget for food, rent and bills BEFORE you spend money on drugs;

Don’t buy drugs on credit;

Avoid (?) dealing speed or other drugs.


“It is time the Prime Minister showed some national leadership on this.

“Teaching 14 year old kids how to use illicit drugs is just outrageous. This is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately!

“I look forward to meeting with Darren Marton, the founder of the ‘Drugs - No-Way’ campaign in Canberra on Wednesday, along with Ms Bronwyn Bishop, who chaired the House of Representatives Inquiry into Illicit Drugs last year,” Senator Cormann said.

If I could be a fly on the wall at any event to ever take place, I would skip The Watergate Hotel, the meeting between Howard and Costello over the leadership and even the last supper. But I wouldn’t miss the meeting that Mathias Cormann is having with Darren Marton and Bronwyn Bishop. I would have enough material to fill this blog for at least 2 years. If only they would invite Chris Pyne and help raise the average IQ above 65. And what the hell are they going to talk about? The Bishop Report is dead, Labor is in power, Bronwyn Bishop sits on the back bench, Mathias Cormann is a goose and Darren Marton is just another 'abstinence only' moop.

You have laugh at Cormann’s rhetoric.

We need decisions focused on winning the war, not on helping the enemy gain more strength.

What the hell does that mean? Who is the enemy? What decisions? Does he mean the ones that got us in this mess in the first place?

Our children don’t need lessons on how to use harmful and illicit drugs. They need to get the clear message that drugs are bad.

Drugs are bad, mkay. Now that we know that, our children should be safe. What a relief! Do they need lessons on how to use harmful and illicit drugs? Of course not because they know that drugs are bad ... mkay. Illicit drugs means illegal drugs so why would kids be involved in breaking the law? Drugs are bad ... and illegal ... and dangerous, mkay. Just as long as we don’t send the wrong message. 

But what if the kids don’t listen and decide to take drugs anyway. Is there some booklet to advise them what is the safest way to do what they have decided to do and are going to do anyway? Yes there is and ... oh wait, it’s been shredded. It was full of wrong messages ... and information that might save their life. 

The fact that drugs are harmful is even more reason to teach them the safest practice and because they are illicit means there is no regulations for drug dealers to provide instructions or warnings. Pretty inconsiderate really.

What is the wrong message? For too long now, the idea that sensible, appropriate advice will give the  green light to go ahead and take drugs has been used to appear tough on drugs or for the comfort zone of the message provider. Research has shown many times that scare tactics alone do not achieve the required result as the reality is often much different to the portrayed message. In other words, people aren’t stupid. People taking drugs are well aware of the dangers and not offering advice that might keep them alive because it ‘sends the wrong message’ is mind numbingly stupid. Using this excuse should be a flag to everyone that the messenger does not fully understood the issue or has an ulterior motive. In an advanced society, we should be examining those who use such ridiculous comments and be questioning their intelligence or motives. Such foolish actions would not be tolerated in the business world or in a lab or even in most of society but somehow it’s okay to risk our kids lives because it’s the issue of drugs. Am I missing something?

This is another ‘harm minimisation’ booklet that should be pulped immediately!

Damn that Harm Minimisation! Saving lives, reducing harm, educating our kids. What sort of message is that? What next? Telling us that alcohol is a drug? Pffft. Kids aren’t going to fall for that one. They’re not stupid you know.

In his first year in office the Prime Minister has been leading a ‘war’ on just about everything. Why is it then that his Government has abandoned the critically important war on drugs?

The current government is tackling a more pressing problem, alcohol abuse, which the Libs conveniently overlooked. The focus on drugs has much more value politically and this fact was abused by the previous government. Being an unpopular opposition, it seems it would be an ideal time to dust off the “Tough on Drugs” sham to counter the much more effective alcohol reforms of the current government. The Libs have always had a reservation about tackling our drinking habits which lacks the hysteria of drug use. It’s a piss poor excuse to drag out the redundant Bishop Report and resort to the old tricks of using fear and ignorance to gain some much needed attention.

Alcohol enjoys enormous popularity and special significance in Australian society. It is used for relaxation, socialisation and celebration. Alcohol also plays a significant role in the Australian economy, generating substantial employment, retail activity, export income and tax revenue. There is also evidence that alcohol can benefit the health of some individuals, if consumed at low levels, by contributing to the reduction of cardiovascular disease risk from middle-age onwards. Everyday, thousands of Australians benefit in some way from alcohol.
-Liberal Party’s National Alcohol Strategy 2006

Calling on the government to commit to the "War on Drugs" and to continue with the opposition’s “Tough on Drugs” policies is laughable. The "War on Drugs" is the single biggest policy failure in US political history. Most of Europe is on the verge of breaking away from their commitments to the US dominated anti-drug UN conventions and have clearly shown how Harm Minimisation is a far superior policy to the old Zero Tolerance ideology. Promoting the Bishop Report scam as the core of our drug policy is ludicrous as the rest of the world is giving support to completely opposed strategies. The problem is politicians like Cormann really don’t know much about the issue of illicit drugs and especially Harm Minimisation. Before being so arrogant and forth coming with harsh demands it might be wise to actually know what you’re talking about first.

Senator Mathias Cormann has joined the ranks of other ignorant, lying politicians like Bronwyn Bishop, Chris Pyne, Donna Faragher, Mary Wooldridge, Steve Fielding, Alan Cadman, Alex Hawke, Trish Draper, Peter Dutton, Kay Hull, Ann Bressington, Harry Quick, Luke Simpkins, Louise Markus, John Howard, Mark Vaile etc. etc. etc.

Like the "War on Drugs", the war on dickheads seems to be unwinnable.