Drug Madness Costs Decades of Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then the crunch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles:

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

More Dangerous Drug Felons in Alaska

First there was an addict being jailed on two felony drug charges for 5 grams of heroin. Now someone is on a felony drug charge and just avoided jail for driving a car to where her friend sold someone a few OxyContins. To top it off, her friend copped 3 three felony drug charges and faces certain jail for doing the sale. What is it with Alaska and drug users? I'm so glad that tens of thousands of dollars have been spent and multiple resources have been used on catching these dangerous criminal masterminds instead of on murderers, violent thugs or car thieves. Everyone must feel so much safer.

Woman pleads guilty to felony drug charge Anchorage Daily News July 2009 JUNEAU -- A Juneau woman has pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge in connection with an OxyContin deal made in April. Haley Rogers' plea deal will keep her out of prison if she completes a drug-rehabilitation program and doesn't violate probation. A judge scheduled sentencing for Aug. 13, 2010, to give Rogers time to complete the drug-rehabilitation program in Anchorage. Prosecutors say the 24-year-old acted as the driver in a drug deal made with a police informant. Amber Scroggins, the alleged seller, has pleaded not guilty to three felony drug charges. A jury trial is set to begin next month.

5 Grams of Heroin Sends You to Jail

Child porn, shootings, bashings and .... someone self medicating because of a reoccurring brain disorder(addiction). I don’t really know what to say. I suppose someone this dangerous to society needs jail. Face it, he was going to get high and he is a junkie after all. And at least now he can get clean in prison. I’m sure he will thank us when he gets out and starts a new life ... except for the permanent criminal record for heroin possession. He mightn’t be able to get a decent job now and many states won’t give him any government assistance but hey! if he’s young enough, he could go back to college. Oh, wait, they don’t give normal student assistance to those with a drug record. And his drug record will be a problem still when he finishes and applies for work. So he doesn’t get a decent job, at least he can get financial assistance with accommodation. Oh, that’s right, the drug record excludes him from government assistance. In fact, his drug record excludes him from most forms of assistance in the US, private, federal and state. There is one upside though ... prison will teach him how to be a good criminal. Considering all the obstacles in his way, this may be his only option.

Troopers Intercept Package Containing 5 Grams Of Heroin Anchorage Daily News July 2009 SITKA -- Law enforcement officers intercepted a package bound for Sitka that contained 5 grams of heroin, resulting in its recipient being jailed on two felony drug charges, according to Alaska State Troopers. After intercepting the package, which shipped from Colorado, officials with a Southeast drug task force on conducted a controlled delivery to its intended recipient, Joseph Finn, 26, troopers said. Officials also found one gram of heroin and miscellaneous drug paraphernalia in Finn's home, troopers said. Finn was arrested on two counts of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance and booked into the Sitka jail.

This comment from a reader called Kwix sums it up nicely.

Kwix wrote on 07/24/2009 03:32:12 PM: 5 grams. For those who don't do math and want something to relate that to, it's the same weight as a nickel. That's right, reach into your pocket and pull a nickel out. Now hold it in your hand, stare at it really hard and ask yourself if that's really worth two felonies and a likely long jail term.

New US Drug Czar - New Era?

After years of appointing woefully inadequate candidates for the role of Drug Czar (Director Of National Drug Control Policy), the US government has finally broken with tradition and nominated someone with substance. Although Seattle Police Chief, Gil Kerlikowske has a law and order background and ideally the candidate should be a medical professional, his nomination by the US President is still a significant choice. Seattle is known for it’s progressive drug policies under the watch of Gil Kerlikowske which, along with his speech signifies an abrupt change of direction to previous selections for the role as Drug Czar. Reading through his nomination speech, it becomes apparent that under, Gil Kerlikowske, the US is ready to move away from possibly the most dangerous and unsuccessful drug policy the world has seen. Kerlikowske mentions science and evidence based strategies which will put him at odds with the current cronies who have become part of the woodwork at the Office of National Drug Control Policy(ONDCP). I wonder how long it takes for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Drug Free America Foundation(DFAF) to welcome his nomination? With a clear change of direction, I can’t see propaganda merchants like Calvina Fay, Executive Director of DFAF being too pleased.

Testimony of The Honorable R. Gil Kerlikowske April 1, 2009 Statement Of R. Gil Kerlikowske Nominee To Be Director Of National Drug Control Policy Before The Committee On The Judiciary Of The United States Senate Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Specter, and Members of the Committee, it is a great honor and privilege to be sitting before you today as the nominee for Director of National Drug Control Policy. I am deeply humbled by President Obama's request that I serve in a position of such importance. I wish to thank the members of the Committee and your staffs for providing me with the opportunity to meet with many of you over the past few weeks. Each of these meetings has been productive and informative, and if confirmed, I look forward to our forming closer relationships and engaging in richer discussions about the future course of the nation's drug control strategies. I want to specifically thank Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell for their support today. As Chief of Police in Seattle, I relied on their assistance and leadership in helping me reduce crime rates in that city to record lows. I also want to thank my wife, Anna Laszlo, who is here with me today. She has supported my commitment to public service these many years. Additionally, while they are not here today, I must acknowledge the support of both my mother, Norma Shands, and of Anna's mother, Eva Laszlo. Anna and I, both only children, are deeply grateful to these two women for their commitment to us over the course of our lives and careers. I would also be remiss if I did not recognize Judge Thomas W. Shands, my step-father, who has since passed but would be very proud to see me appearing before you today. He was an inspiration to me while growing up as an individual who could hand down stiff sentences when necessary but also was in the forefront of campaigning for modern treatment for incarcerated juveniles. I would also like to thank the many organizations and individuals who have offered their support for my nomination. I look forward to conducting expansive and open dialogue with all stakeholders as I develop a powerful and effective national drug strategy. I have proudly spent the past 36 years of my life in law enforcement and public service. It has been my privilege to lead two of this country's largest police departments over a period of thirteen years. In my current role as the Chief of Police in Seattle, where I have led for nearly nine years, I have brought innovative solutions to the problems of drugs and crime, and their effect on society. A key element in my approach while in Seattle has involved enlisting the support of the entire community to reduce crime. While this approach is commonly referred to as, "community policing", I prefer it be recognized as "policing". The transparency and collaborative approach of this concept has ultimately led to the lowest drug use and serious crime rates in Seattle since 1967. My goal is to use similar principles in the development, articulation, and implementation of an effective, comprehensive, and coordinated national drug control strategy. Let me assure you that I know President Obama is committed to developing and implementing a rigorous drug control agenda, while bringing ONDCP back to its original leadership position. I am also grateful for the strong support of Vice President Biden. Our Vice President has long been a leader in protecting communities and families from the harms of illegal drugs. His continued dedication to solving the drug problem will be a key resource for ONDCP's success. Upon confirmation, I will immediately coordinate with my colleagues in the federal government, as well as our counterparts at the state and local level, to ensure that the national drug control strategy is: • Balanced and comprehensive, based upon the best possible understanding of the drug threat, and incorporates a science-based approach to public policy; • Vigorously implemented through development of a national drug budget that contains proven, effective programs; and • Rigorously assessed and adapted to changing circumstances, Essential to these efforts is restoration of the vitality of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by recommitting the agency to its policy leadership mission. ONDCP was created by the Congress—under the guidance of this Committee—to focus this nation's efforts toward solving the drug problem by developing and implementing a balanced, comprehensive national drug control strategy. ONDCP will effectively build consensus on how best to use interdiction efforts, law enforcement, treatment, prevention, and sound research to achieve measurable results in reducing drug use and its consequences. Dialogue will be continuous. Debate will be inclusive of disparate ideas. Deliberation will be comprehensive and collaborative. I will work diligently to ensure that our efforts are supported by a properly balanced federal drug control budget—one which logically implements research-based programs to support and implement that Strategy. There will be a renewed focus on evidence-based approaches to reduce demand for drugs, through prevention as well as treatment. Additionally, we must also work to create strong partnerships to reduce the overall impact of drug trafficking and use. Increased cooperation with the international community must also be included in any comprehensive strategy. Our nation's demand for drugs often fuels drug production and trafficking, as well as violence and corruption, within other nations. Domestic drug use directly funds the terrible drug-related crime currently wracking Mexico and fuels illegal armed groups in Colombia. Our international drug control programs help strengthen law enforcement and judicial institutions, while providing alternative livelihoods for poor farmers. While these international supply reduction programs play a vital role in improving security, supporting the rule of law, and denying terrorist and criminal safe havens around the world, the greatest contribution we can make toward stability would be to reduce our demand for illicit drugs. Finally, under the assumption that if you can't measure it, you can't improve it, I will set a goal for the development of a strong, transparent monitoring system. While highly complex, performance evaluation of the national drug strategy is key to both validating and tracking the efficacy of the strategic goals and objectives established by the National Drug Control Strategy and the individual programs which are funded to support it. With a robust monitoring system in place, we will know better how to respond to the ever-changing international drug situation and will have the information required to guide the mission-essential coordination and collaboration efforts of the office. We will be better able to report on our progress, justify the level of funding requested, and satisfy the interest of the citizens of this nation that their money is being well-spent and that their needs for a safer and more secure environment are being met. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today. It would indeed be an honor to serve this nation in its effort to reduce drug use and the problems it creates for every American and the international community. I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may have.

Are US Drug Czar Lies Driving Our Anti-Drug Crusaders?

Many Australian anti-drug zealots want us to follow the lead from the US and Sweden on drug policy. Considering the US spend about $69,000 million dollars a year fighting drug use yet have the highest level of drug usage in the world, you have wonder why.

Looking to the U.S. as a role model for drug control is like looking to apartheid South Africa for how to deal with race. -Ethan Nadelmann. Executive Director - Drug Policy Alliance

Australian anti-drug organisations and commentators often refer to the US government’s, The Office of National Drug Control Policy (White House drug czar's office) for proof that “tough on drugs” type policies are working towards their ideal of a drug free world. They regularly ignore the numerous reports that show how much of a failure US drug policy is but wave about the latest findings from the White House drug czar's office as gospel. The problem is the credibility of their source. It was the White House drug czar's office that:

• Said about The Netherlands, “its streets are cluttered with junkies.” because of their relaxation of cannabis laws.
• Labeled Dutch drug policy an "unmitigated disaster citing completely incorrect data (which he later had to apologise for after an official complaint from the Dutch government)
• Bought off the media for their anti-drug advertising campaigns. [link]
• Denied needle exchange programs and other Harm Reduction strategies [link]
• Backed the scientifically discredited DARE education program even after research showed it actually encouraged drug use, not stopped it.
• Falsely claimed “Today's users, confront pot that's up to 30 times stronger than what aging baby boomers smoked.”

Then I find an article that cuts into the very heart of the propaganda used by Australian anti-drug bullshitters. It’s more evidence that the White House drug czar's office fudge their figures but I wonder if this will simply be overlooked.

Drug Czar Fails Spectacularly at Cutting Marijuana Consumption By Bruce Mirken AlterNet October 2008 The White House drug czar's office, aka the Office of National Drug Control Policy, has been claiming loudly and frequently for several years now that its aggressive anti-marijuana campaign has been a rousing success. As deputy ONDCP director Scott Burns put it in a recent California newspaper interview, "drug use is down in the United States dramatically since 2001 by every barometer and indicator that we use. ... Twenty-four percent reduction in marijuana use by young people 12 to 18 years old." Uh, not quite. In fact, the major U.S. government study of drug use, the annual National Survey on Drug Use and Health, shows that the drug czar's office has badly failed to meet its own goals for reducing use of marijuana and other illegal drugs, according to a pair of new reports by George Mason University senior fellow Jon Gettman, Ph.D. In addition, ONDCP and drug czar John Walters have misused treatment statistics to suggest that marijuana is dangerously addictive when the government's own data suggest that arrest-driven treatment admissions have wasted tax dollars by treating thousands who were not truly drug-dependent. During Walters' tenure, ONDCP has released at least 127 separate anti-marijuana TV, radio and print ads and 34 press releases focused mainly on marijuana, in addition to 50 reports from ONDCP and other federal agencies on marijuana or anti-marijuana campaigns. Beyond doubt, this anti-marijuana blitz -- coupled with record marijuana arrests year after year, to the point where in 2007 an American was arrested on marijuana charges every 36 seconds -- constitutes the most intense war on marijuana since "Reefer Madness." Gettman, who made international headlines in December 2006 with an analysis showing that marijuana is the top cash crop in the United States, catalogues the failures in detail. In 2007 there were 14.5 million current users of marijuana in the United States, compared with 14.6 million in 2002, while the number of Americans who have ever used marijuana actually increased. ONDCP has not even come close to meeting its goal of reducing illegal drug use by 25 percent by 2007 in any age group. In fact, among adults, overall illegal drug use actually increased 4.7% from 2002 to 2007. Teen marijuana use is down a bit but still remains common: One in nine (12 percent) 14- and 15-year-olds and one in four (23.7 percent) 16- and 17-year-olds used marijuana in 2007. Walters loves to cite increases in marijuana treatment admissions as proof that marijuana is addictive and dangerous. But Gettman's analysis of data from the government's Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) shows that the percentage of marijuana treatment admissions referred by the criminal justice system jumped from 48% to 58% from 1992 to 2006. In other words, most of the increase in treatment admissions was driven by people being arrested and offered treatment instead of jail. Strikingly, just 45 percent of marijuana admissions met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for marijuana dependence. Also arguing against claims that treatment admissions reflect dangerously addictive "pot 2.0" (yes, some officials have actually used that phrase, and some in the press have repeated it as if it meant something) is the fact that, as Gettman notes, "Use of residential detox -- a clear sign of a serious addiction problem -- is used for 24% of heroin admissions and 21% of alcohol admissions, but just 2% of marijuana admissions." Gettman's bottom line on those treatment stats is simple and depressing: "Increases in drug treatment admissions for marijuana, often cited by officials as evidence that marijuana is dangerously addictive, are driven by criminal justice policies rather than medical diagnosis. These policies increase public costs for providing drug treatment services and reduce funds for and availability of treatment of more serious drug problems." This is your government on drugs.

Decriminalisation Pushes On

Should someone who has a small quantity of marijuana be open to the threat of jail? What about the tens of thousands of people who go to night clubs every week and take ecstasy? These drugs are much less harmful than alcohol yet drinking dangerous levels of rocket fuel is legal which often results in violence, accidents and self inflicted harm. One of the sad facts of living under drug prohibition is the many laws that penalise the small time recreational drug user or addict. Some countries like the USA can ruin your life for simply possessing less than a gram of cannabis e.g. half a joint.

In the USA, we have laws, both Federal and state, preventing those with any type of drug conviction from EVER obtaining housing assistance, food stamps, welfare, or student loans. This does not apply to murderers, rapists or child molesters--just drug convictions. In addition, in my state, my right to vote was removed." -Kerry Wolf. ARMMAT - Texas

Although the US has the highest drug use in the world, it also has some of the harshest drug laws. Drug screening for potential employees is common place and there is drug testing in some schools. The US government and some states take a strong stance on drug users and often impose an extra burden to an already difficult transition back into society. Once you have a drug record, you may permanently lose some government issued services like student loans, welfare and even the right to vote.

So many times I have seen the women I was incarcerated with lose custody of their kids or get re-incarcerated simply because they could not meet the requirements of probation fast enough, such as getting a job that pays enough money for you to supply yourself with housing suitable for you and several kids, (and no sharing bedrooms for kids of opposite genders or with the parent, so you may well need several bedrooms), plenty of food, clothing, pay all your bills, pay your probation fees and fines, any class fees you are obligated to take, and much more, and you cannot get food stamps or housing assistance, because you might spend it on DRUGS, and if you want to go back to school to better yourself, again, sorry--no student loans for druggies (this varies by state--some states opt out). It just makes it almost impossible for these folks to get back on their feet. -Kerry Wolf. ARMMAT - Texas

Strategies like mandatory sentencing and the 3 strikes rule were supposed to deal with career criminals but instead have plagued the countries and states that have implemented them, especially the US. The US has almost 50% of all people on parole or in prison on drugs charges with nearly one in eight prisoners in jail for marijuana related offences. Prisons are big business for the Americans with 1 in 32 of their citizens in jail, on probation or on parole and 1 in 100 actually in prison. Per capita, they have more prisoners than any other nation on earth including China and Iran. Many countries are now trying to minimise the damage that current laws inflict on recreational users by decriminalising small quantities for personal use. The burden of processing minor drug charges like cannabis possession also has many law officers supportive of decriminalisation. Recently, Argentinan, President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner repeated her call to decriminalise personal drug use and instead crack down on traffickers and dealers.

I don't like it when people easily condemn someone who has an addiction as if he were a criminal, as if he were a person who should be persecuted -Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner - President of Argentina

Two years ago, the Mexican President Vicente Fox proposed decriminalising drug possession but was forced to back down by the Bush administration. Brazil and Colombia have already decriminalised drugs for personal use and it is a growing trend in Latin America. Though many European countries have already decriminalised drugs for personal use, new, more liberal laws and attitudes are starting to take shape. Recently, Austria has effectively removed the limits on personal use for drugs by totally separating trafficking and using. Although cannabis possession is still not legal but decriminalised in Austria, a man was put on 2 years probation for having 10Kg of cannabis leaves because the judge was convinced he never intended to sell it. One of the problems with decriminalisation is of course, the elephant. That elephant in the room called the drug dealer who is needed to get your drugs. But by using some European ingenuity and a close look at the law, the pot club was born. The first association of cannabis growers was created in Belgium which took drug dealing for money out of the equation. The members combine their efforts to either take turns at growing or having one large crop that has the total maximum allowed per person. A case in Spain was recently tested in court and given the judges nod for 66 members of a Spanish pot club.

Cannabis Clubs in Spain Legal - Belgium Forms 1st Club Recently Canna Zine 18 August 2008 Recently several charitable "cannabis clubs" were founded in Spain. The lawfulness of which are now confirmed, and sanctioned by courts in Catalonia and the Basque region. People join the cannabis clubs to grow cannabis together and distribute it to members of the club at cost price. Only members have access to the growing rooms and the cannabis. In Spain trade with cannabis is prohibited, but possession for personal use is legal. Its a European Dis-Union so far as cannabis is concerned. In Spain you may grow your own supply thus keeping you away from those nast drug-dealing types, but doing the same thing in the UK is liable to see you convicted on a 5 stretch. So what exactly is the point of Europe? A court in Bilbao, the biggest city of the Basque region, cleared four defendants of a cannabis club with 66 members from the prosecution of illegal cultivation of 150 kg of cannabis (fresh whole plants that resulted in 17.4 kg dried cannabis). 39 members use cannabis for medical purposes. ENCOD (European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies) , a European organisation for the change of the drug laws regards the Spanish cannabis clubs as a model for other countries. Recently the first association of cannabis growers was created in Belgium. As in Spain the possession of cannabis for personal use in Belgium, is legal. Isn't it about time your government acted out a similar law change?

While some countries consider the well being and rights of their citizens as important, others do not. Recently in the UK, the Brown government upgraded cannabis to a class B drug, up from class C, increasing the penalties for minor cannabis possession from a verbal warning to a maximum of five years in prison. Even though cannabis use dropped while being a lesser class C drug, politics again won out over evidence and facts. But did it win? Those in the front lines away from the leather chairs and back room deals of the so called leaders, had different ideas. The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) declared that they would not be changing their tactics and cannabis for personal use would remain a low priority.

Police will not adopt a tougher approach to cases of simple possession of cannabis when ministers upgrade the legal status of the drug to class B, the Guardian can disclose.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) confirmed last night that the current policy of "confiscate and warn" would continue, despite Gordon Brown's determination to reclassify the drug in an attempt to "send a tough message" to young people about its use -Guardian News. U.K.

Australia is another country that is turning the clock back against world trends. Although several Australian states had made progress by decriminalising cannabis, some politicians are trying to revert back to the well worn out path of zero tolerance on all users. It’s a damn shame that politicians and moral crusaders will selfishly sacrifice the futures and careers of our youth for personal gain. With the recent admission to smoking cannabis from several Australian politicians, one has to wonder if it is a matter of what’s good for us is not good for you.

The New Face of Heroin

One of the goals of The Australian Heroin Diaries is dispel the myth that all heroin users live in a deserted factory and look like Jack Black. Heroin use crosses all socio-economic boundaries, is not racially prejudice and doesn’t care how old you are. Some people have been users for 20+ years and will never get addicted whilst others fall in love with their first taste and ultimately end up as a research statistic. The only certainty is that the public perception of heroin users is probably wrong. Shaped by a media in a permanent state of drug hysteria and with governments playing who’s toughest on drugs, the image of the heroin user is not good especially the poor old junkie.

As usual, heroin addiction has been allowed to wallow amongst the undesirables until it reached the tree lined streets of those who ignored it. I wonder if those people who cried out for tougher penalties and encouraged barbaric treatment of heroin addicts will be so vocal when the police come knocking on their door.

The New Face of Heroin

By Scott Michels

ABC News

August 2008

Heroin Is Attracting New Users Who Are Young, Middle Class and Suburban.

The first time Lauren, a suburban teenager in Connecticut, took a prescription pain killer, she says she was sick with strep throat during her freshman year in college and grabbed a Percoset from her parents' medicine cabinet. She never dreamed where that one pill would take her.

A few weeks later, she took an Oxycontin to help her sleep. The next day she took another. "Once I started, I never stopped," she said.

In less that two years, Lauren, who asked that her last name not be used because of privacy concerns, said she was spending $300 to $400 a day on pills. She stole jewelry from her mother and aunt in North Haven, an upper middle class bedroom community near New Haven, Conn., and passed back checks, racking up close to $20,000 in debt, according to her mother.

But when she still couldn't afford pills, which can cost more than $60 each on the street, Lauren turned to something more affordable and more deadly to satisfy her addiction: heroin.

"When you think of a heroin addict, you don't think of me," she said. "But that's what I became."

"When you're sick" from withdrawal "nothing else matters except making it go away," she said. "I took whatever I could find, whatever was there."

Though overall heroin use has remained relatively stable nationwide, numerous police agencies across the country say the drug, once the scourge of poor inner cities, has in the last several years attracted a new generation of users who are largely young, middle-class and living in rural and suburban areas.

At least part of that resurgence, police say, is a side effect of the explosion in prescription drug abuse. Federal statistics show that nearly 7 million Americans abused prescription drugs in 2007, more than marijuana, cocaine, heroin and Ecstasy combined -- an 80 percent increase since 2000.

Police fear the boom in pain killer abuse is leading teens and young adults, like Lauren, from pills to heroin, a cheaper and more powerful  and far more dangerous - opiate.

"It's an economics thing. If someone is hooked on Oxy and can't afford to pay $80 per pill, then they turn to heroin," which can cost as little as $4 a hit, said Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Garrison Courtney.

National statistics show that heroin use among high school students and young adults is relatively uncommon compared with other illegal drugs and has remained basically unchanged in the last few years.

But local law enforcement agencies say that an increasing number of young people are using the drug.

"People say that heroin went away. It's never gone anywhere," said Special Agent Douglas Collier of the New Jersey division of the DEA. "But the user group has changed. The old time heroin user was the guy on the street corner. Now we have kids from the suburbs."

Heroin, an opiate made from the poppy plant, works on the body in the same way as many prescription drugs such as morphine and Oxycontin. It is among the most addictive drugs and can be injected, smoked or snorted.

The 2008 National Drug Threat Assessment from the National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the Justice Department, called prescription drug abuse leading to adolescent heroin abuse an "emerging concern" to law enforcement and a trend that was likely to continue as prescription pain killers become more difficult to obtain.

The Center, also based on anecdotal reports from local law enforcement, says heroin use is growing outside the Northeast, where the drug has traditionally been a problem, and into areas such as Appalachia and Ohio. Law enforcement agencies in areas such as Maine, Alaska and Wisconsin told ABCNews.com that the drug is growing in popularity.

"Unfortunately, 18 to 26 is our big target audience," said Dave Spakowicz, a special agent at the Wisconsin Department of Justice who heads the Milwaukee High Density Drug Trafficking Heroin Initiative. "The price of Oxycontin has doubled in the last year and a half in the Milwaukee area. People are moving to heroin."

Nationwide, the number of people who said they used heroin in the last month grew from 119,000 in 2003 to 338,000 in 2006, the latest years for which statistics are available, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. In 2006, 3.7 million Americans said they had used heroin at some point; about 60,000 were under 18.

While use of most illicit drugs by 8th through 12th graders is down, heroin use has remained steady over the last several years, with roughly one percent of high school students saying they had used the drug in the last year, according to the Monitoring the Future Survey. After a boom in heroin use among high schoolers in the last decade, the numbers have dropped since 2000.

But in some areas, particularly in the Northeast, the numbers are higher. Nearly twice as many New Jersey young adults admitted to using heroin at some point than the national average, according to national surveys. Similar results have been reported in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

"Heroin used to be thought of as a drug of the poor, in depressed areas," said Anthony Marotta, assistant special agent in charge of the DEA in Columbus, Ohio. "Here, it's across all lines. We have everything from well-to-do affluent areas to depressed housing."

Aside from the reduced cost, law enforcement experts say the increased purity of the drug is contributing to its prevalence. Kids are more apt to try the more potent drug, several times more pure than the drugs coming into the country in the 1970s, because it can be snorted or smoked, rather than injected.

"When you can snort it and you're already snorting other drugs, it becomes no big deal," said Lt. Chris Martin of the Brewer, Maine, police department.

The path from prescription pills to heroin was a common one among teens at the Daytop residential treatment center in Mendham, N.J., said Brian Gamarello, the clinical director. "Why am I taking 10 pills when I can do a bag [of heroin] and get 7 or 10 times as high?" Gamarello asked.

Dale Freeman said he didn't think much of it when a doctor prescribed Oxycontin for his daughter after she fell and fractured her tail bone.

But, after her treatment had dragged on for more than a year, Danielle was hooked to the powerful painkiller, Freeman said. "Two weeks after her surgery, her back was fixed," he said. "But her Oxy problem wasn't."

With her prescription having run out and pills running as much as $80 each on the street, Freeman said, Danielle, a one-time "A" student from a stable family, turned to heroin.

The next several years, Freeman and his wife said, became a nightmare. Danielle stole money from his diving business in Quincy, Mass., a blue collar city outside Boston. She lived for a time in motels, between stints in rehab. She is now in jail on a probation violation after she left a sober house sponsored by a drug court, her lawyer said.

She faces several years in prison if she is not accepted back into the drug court program. Danielle had used other drugs and had struggled with mental illness before her problems with heroin, her mother said.

"There was no end to what she could have become," Freeman said. "Now she's locked up in a women's prison. She hasn't seen her kids in over a year. It crushed my family and it's ruined her family."

Danielle was arrested in 2006 for allegedly stealing checks and credit cards from her father's company, after her father turned her in to the police. She admitted in drug court that there was enough evidence to convict her of larceny, check forgery and improper use of a credit card, according to the Quincy court clerk's office, and was placed on supervised release.

"And we don't see any end in sight," Freeman said.

Both Lauren and Danielle had used other drugs before using painkillers.

Experts say it is easier to overdose on heroin than on prescription pills, which have regulated dosages. Emergency room visits due to heroin use grew from 47,000 in 2003, eight percent of total drug-related emergency room visits, to 164,000, or about 20 percent of the total, in 2005, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, which monitors drug-related hospital emergency department visits and drug-related deaths.

Heroin addicts have much trouble staying clean, with some studies showing relapse rates as high as 75 percent after treatment.

Lauren, now out of rehab and clean for several months, said she relapsed several times. She said once she began using drugs regularly, she found she had easy access to prescription pain killers and heroin in her tony suburb. "I just had to call up one of my friends. I just had to go around the corner," she said.

As her addiction escalated, she said began taking more and more money and jewelry from her family and friends. "You would see jewelry and you would just have to take it," she said. "No matter where you were. You just see it as drugs. Any rational thought process is out the window."

"She was my daughter and I loved her, but at the same time I hated her at that moment so much for what she had done to her family," said her mother, Valerie.

Lauren is now working and hopes to be a lawyer. "I come from a good family. You never imagine yourself stealing from your own family. You never imagine yourself as a heroin addict. But it grabs onto you and it doesn't let go."

Tough Drug Policies Failing, Stupidy, Pyne Again & Daily Telegraph Readers

“Tough on Drugs” is a Useless Policy

The World Health Organisation recently completed a huge survey titled, Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. 

Description: Alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drug use cause considerable morbidity and mortality, but good cross-national epidemiological data are limited. This paper describes such data from the first 17 countries participating in the World Health Organization's (WHO's) World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative.

Here’s the interesting part:

Drug use does not appear to be related to drug policy, as countries with more stringent policies (e.g., the US) did not have lower levels of illegal drug use than countries with more liberal policies (e.g., The Netherlands).

[...]

Nevertheless, the study did find clear differences in drug use across different regions of the world, with the US having among the highest levels of legal and illegal drug use of all the countries surveyed.

For those demanding Australia to toughen up on drug policy, you are WRONG. More punitive actions WILL NOT help the drug problem. Please, please, leave it to medical and related experts who don’t have a political or religious agenda.

Full report here

Five Defining Characteristics of Stupidity

Rick Shenkman an associate professor of history at George Mason University defines stupidity as 5 basic types. What first struck me was how many Zero Tolerance buffoons fit neatly into the stupidity types. Read the definitions whilst keeping in mind the people who regularly call for tougher drug penalties or implementing Zero Tolerance and the penny will drop. At least 4 of 5 definitions will apply to these people.

Five defining characteristics of stupidity:

First, is sheer ignorance: Ignorance of critical facts about important events in the news, and ignorance of how our government functions and who's in charge. 

Second, is negligence: The disinclination to seek reliable sources of information about important news events. 

Third, is wooden-headedness, as the historian Barbara Tuchman defined it: The inclination to believe what we want to believe regardless of the facts.

Fourth, is shortsightedness: The support of public policies that are mutually contradictory, or contrary to the country's long-term interests. 

Fifth, and finally, is a broad category I call bone-headedness, for want of a better name: The susceptibility to meaningless phrases, stereotypes, irrational biases, and simplistic diagnoses and solutions that play on our hopes and fears.

-Rick Shenkman, Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter, associate professor of history at George Mason University

Chris Pyne: Stupidity Has No Bounds

I recently found an article that Dr David Caldicott wrote in 2007 about the ex federal minister for ageing, Chris Pyne and his complete lack of knowledge on issues he reguarly comments about. It’s a doozy especially where Pyne declared that ecstasy was cut with “hydrochloric acid”. He wrongly came to that conclusion from the technical term for MDMA because it exists as a “hydrochloric salt” like many other chemicals. He put the two together and came up with “Ecstasy is cut with hydrochloric acid”. If that wasn’t bad enough, when asked where the hell he got his info from, he said the newspapers! Maybe the reports on the subject, that the government commissioned, had too many big words. Recommended reading.

Pyne's Pain by Dr David Caldicott

Some Daily Telegraph Readers Are Disgusting

Yesterday, a Daily Telegraph article about a student who died from a drug overdose was met with this comment:

Oh well, one less drug addict off the streets. It isn't the dealers we need to worry about. It is the addicts who will kill their own family just to get their next hit.

-Posted by: Andrew B of The hills district

Georgia Chant, was a 15-year-old student at Barrenjoey High School on Sydney's northern beaches. Since she died from a drug overdose, this rabid, lowlife felt it was important enough to go out of way to write his comment. What if her family reads this? What if it was his daughter or sister? You, Andrew B, of the hills district [sic] are a clueless wanker. I would happily do jail time just to get you alone in a room for 10 minutes. You freak.

Some Daily Telegraph Readers Are Spot-On

In response to a Daily Telegraph article last year, this comment has to be one the best I have read.

Readers Comment:

Anti-drug's campaigner, Carly Crutchfield. Is she anti-drugs, or just anti-illicits? She stated, "Young people do not try to hide it and do not think it's wrong". 

Why would she believe that young people should think drug consumption is wrong and hide it away when the Drug Cartels of tri-methyl-xanthine/caffeine, ethane hydroxide/ethyl alcohol and nicotine constantly target the young and we have our media, our sporting personalities, our celebrities and yes, even our so-called anti-drug campaigners, stating that it's 'okay to consume these drugs',. They don't give a damn when the drug dealers say you can 'party on these drugs'., while not one drug dealer has to put out any warning signs on the drugs they deal and advocate to children as well as adults, while helping the Government to eradicate the 'competition', the so-called 'illicits'. 

The 7.30 Report stated that Police knew 30 days before Annabelle Catt's death that there was the toxic amphetamine PMA in a batch of street ecstasy, but no warnings were given and no drug testing by consumers is allowed. If Mr. Debnam wants to intervene early, then he needs to intervene on drug abuse only, and not just on choice of drug.

-Posted by: D.Nentwig of NSW

Article: Labor's Drug Surrender