Friday 26 December 2008
GBH, Ecstasy, Overdoses and Raves - Australian Style
Monday 28 July 2008
Remembering Bronwyn Bishop
This document is full of harm minimisation. The Prime Minister said that he is opposed to harm minimisation and that we do not have it.
-Bronwyn Bishop
Australia had once led the world when it came to drug policy because of Harm Minimisation(HM). Although HM has been our official policy since 1985 it has had it’s share of critics, especially lately. Probably the most interesting aspect of this government initiative is the lack of understanding from the government itself. Steve Cananne from radio station, JJJ highlighted this so well in a short video documentary last year which exposed the then current government as not even acknowledging our own drug policy and knowing even less about it.
The following links are to the short documentary and the full interview with Bronwyn Bishop who chaired the House Families Committee’s inquiry into the impact of illicit drug use on families titled, “The Winnable War on Drugs”. This interview is the epitome of Zero Tolerance rhetoric from a government caught up in ideology but more importantly how intensely idiotic and deceitful politicians can be to push their narrow minded views onto the public. Watch as Bronwyn Bishop tries to explain her reasoning behind the report and note the political manoeuvring that is as cringe worthy as watching an episode of The Office or Some Mother Do Have ‘Em.
JJJ - Interview with Bronwyn Bishop
STOP. If you haven’t watched them, go back and click on the links ... you will regret it if you don’t.
During the interview, Bronwyn Bishop talks about a huge advertising campaign along the lines of the AIDS Grim Reaper ad. She also throws in the Faces of Meth campaign by the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office. Below is an example of the campaign.
...we have an obligation to have a major advertising campaign, a bit like the Grim Reaper, to tell people what it does to you. Pictures that show what drugs do to you: the rotting teeth, the ageing face, the haggard look, the bone disintegration.
-Bronwyn Bishop
Politicians love fear tactics and BB is no exception. People already know the dangers with drugs but many also don’t believe government spin. BB keeps mentioning the “drug elite” are involved in “old thinking” with Harm Minimisation. This is just a new tactic of Zero Tolerance zealots to use the arguments of HM supporters and switch it around. In fact BB’s suggestions are “old thinking”, not HM which continues to expand and try new evidence based strategies whilst Zero Tolerance policies have been tried over and over but somehow expecting different results.
This report is very specific about what needs to be done to prevent harm—not just to reduce it or minimise it but to prevent it, with the ultimate aim of always making the individual drugfree and not sentenced to a lifetime of methadone, which will probably take 46 years off your life expectancy, and not turned into a hag with their teeth falling out. If you think the mouth of a tobacco-smoking person is hideous,look at the mouth of a methadone user.
-Bronwyn Bishop.
Bronwyn Bishop’s handling of the “The Winnable War on Drugs” committee was disgraceful and deceitful. She stacked the committee with DFA members and was so arrogantly biased from the beginning that I am surprised someone didn’t punch her. The junk science was laid on by the truck full and her opinion kept over riding anyone who disagreed with her. The rhetoric was thick in the air and the use of sound bite type statements was pathetic. “Think of the children”, “the ruined families”, “drug users look disgusting” and more. She put down any expert who was not of the Zero Tolerance view and her incredible lack of knowledge was backed up by members of the committee who were just as rude and aggressive.
Dr Herron: ... I went through that era—I never inhaled—when cannabis was thought to be harmless and useful and all the rest of it. It was the general consensus in the hippie era that that was so. Now, it has taken years—a bit like cigarette-smoking; it took 50 years for cigarette-smoking.
Bronwyn Bishop: But it is not like cigarette smoking, John.
Dr Herron: No, I am saying the deleterious effects of cigarette-smoking took 50 years to be enacted in legislation.
Bronwyn Bishop: Yes, but do not compare the two, because I have never seen anyone commit an act of violence under the influence of tobacco.
Bronwyn Bishop is a well known bigot especially when it comes to Muslims. Her attempt to ban headscarves was even rejected by John Howard but that didn’t stop BB from slipping in a racist comment when she could.
Bronwyn Bishop: Harm minimisation has come to mean different things to different people.
Dr Herron: That is correct.
Bronwyn Bishop: It is a bit like the term ‘multiculturalism’ I suppose. It is ruining people’s lives.
Bronwyn Bishop and her Islam phobia:
In August 2005, Bishop called for Muslim headscarves to be banned from public schools, an opinion also expressed by another prominent Liberal backbencher, Sophie Mirabella. The Prime Minister, John Howard, said that he did not agree with this view as a ban would be impractical. Her preoccupation with criticising Islam in Australia has been criticised as racist, sexist and hypocritical.[3] In November 2005, Bishop expressed the view that "she is opposed to the wearing of the Muslim headscarf, where it does not form part of the school uniform. This is because that in most cases the headscarf is being worn as a sign of defiance and difference between non Muslim and Muslim students" and then went on to say that she "does not believe that a ban on the Jewish skull cap is necessary, because people of the Jewish faith have not used the skull cap as a way of campaigning against the Australian culture, laws and way of life."
-Wikipedia.
Lost in the world of Zero Tolerance is blissful ignorance. Politically it’s too hard to take the advice of expert groups or follow the science. Bronwyn Bishop is a political animal with no conscience or ethics. She will happily deceive the public to get her agenda in motion, whether it’s correct or not.
Addiction alone should determine whether a child is separated from their parent
-Bronwyn Bishop
Science does not allow for ideology to take over and someone’s personal views cannot alter facts ... unless your a politician it seems. This has never been about the welfare of addicts but how it fits in with the government’s “family values” spin. One of the successes of HM is the separation of science and morality which allows research and facts to determine treatment. It’s a real twist when a government committee can be formed on the basis that contradicts this, defeating the very element that gives it success.
The aim should be to make the individual drug-free. We have found those in the drug industry take an amoral stance; they say that by harm minimisation the question of morality is out of the equation and they make no judgment as to whether drugs are good or bad.
-Bronwyn Bishop
Bronwyn Bishop is disgusting, rude, bigoted and deceitful. How someone like her can be a representative of our society raises many questions. Personally she makes me squirm and I wonder how she can go on each day with no remorse. I have brought this up before that people in a position of trust, who play with people’s lives for the sake of political or personal gain should be made to face a court of humanity. If John Howard had been returned to office and her idiotic report had been taken up, the damage to people’s lives and the deaths caused would never be attributed to her, even though she purposely overlooked scientific evidence and factual research. If society was fair, dangerous politicians like Bronwyn Bishop, John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Ann Bressington, Nicola Roxon, Chris Pyne, Fred Nile etc. would be serving jail time for crimes against humanity. Instead they continue to gain personally from playing political chess with drug addicts lives and the experts who are trying to help.
Wednesday 9 July 2008
Tough Drug Policies Failing, Stupidy, Pyne Again & Daily Telegraph Readers
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.
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
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
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
Tuesday 25 March 2008
Diary: What It Could of Been Like - Quarantining Welfare Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIARY: Yesterday I copped the wrath of Tim Blair's slimy fanclub after Blair highlighted a spelling mistake on this blog.
It was a bit distressing especially when some cruel comments were made about the death of my previous wife. The guys at Grods have written a great piece about and it if you want to know more - Story link. The worse part was how distracting it was. I had an urgent job to finish by the next day and we were redoing our garden so I had Mrs Terry screaming at me to help. It was hard to get focussed.
Apart from the usual comments you would expect from a site like Blair's, I started getting some nasty and oddly directed insults.
A thing called Amos came here and proceeded to tell me that I'm an utter, utter fuckup. It continued with what you would expect from those with no connection to the problem. "I wonder how he’d be viewed in Singapore, or Iran" and in reference to methadone patients, "They treat the truth with disdain and make lying an art form". There were some nasty comments belittling the death of my wife including one made by an actual moderator of Blair's blog.
I don't usually pay that much attention to Tim Blair because ... face it, he's boring. His style of writing one or two lines with as much innuendo as he can fit in is just , well, boring. Also most of the Blairites are just bozzos. Hardcore bigots and Howard apologists who have little or no respect for anyone. Often they are violent or threatening especially the American readers.
What this incident did do though, was highlight exactly why I have this blog. Drug addiction is not as straight forward as it is portrayed. Ignorance is bliss for most and they are much happier towing the line with simple and mindless policies like "Tough on Drugs". The responses were highly opinionated and without substance. They presumed they knew the 'whats' and 'whys' of my situation and made bizarre comments from their presumptions. Funnily enough, if they had read my blog, it was all there for them. As with most posts, some comments were valid opinions, some weren't and some were bizarre. The difference here is that some comments were disgusting. Pity they're not my target audience because my site stats went through the roof.
I really want to thank those who posted supportive comments or the dozens of emails that were sent to me. Special thanks to Carrie, Ronny & Kim and Editor, Ant and the others at Grods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What It Could of Been Like - Quarantining Welfare Payments
I found this proposed drug policy from the coalition from before the election. I am not sure if this is still current but it's a taste of what was to come. It's scary stuff and was probably the start of the decline of Harm Minimisation in Australia.
Coalition Government Proposed Drug Policy
Quarantining Welfare PaymentsA re-elected Coalition Government will introduce compulsory welfare quarantining for people who have been convicted of criminal drug offences involving hard drugs. Drug abuse remains one of the most serious social problems confronting Australian society.
To address the problem of welfare payments being used to buy illicit drugs, a re-elected Coalition Government will quarantine 100 per cent of welfare payments to people convicted of criminal drug offences involving hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. This will ensure that all Australian Government welfare payments to which 6,000 convicted drug criminals may be entitled will no longer be paid in cash directly to the welfare recipient. The quarantined welfare payments will be managed by Centrelink or non-government organisations, as happens currently under our Financial Case Management policy for people who have serious welfare breaches. Specialist Financial Case Managers will ensure that welfare payments are only spent on rent, food, clothing, medicines and other essential needs. While this will not reduce the total amount of welfare payments, it will ensure that welfare payments will not be able to be spent on illicit drugs, cigarettes and alcohol.
Quarantining of welfare payments will be for a minimum of 12 months, but may be extended if new criminal drug convictions are recorded during the quarantining period. Welfare recipients who are convicted of criminal drug offences will also be eligible for immediate referral to appropriate rehabilitation services and allied health services to help them overcome their drug problems.
A re-elected Coalition Government will negotiate with the States and Territories to provide Centrelink with details of persons who have been convicted of criminal drug offences in their courts. Centrelink will identify welfare recipients who have a drug conviction and will then contact the welfare recipient to arrange an initial interview to discuss the ongoing Financial Case Management of their welfare payments. Monthly interviews with Financial Case Managers will ensure that essential bills are paid regularly.
These arrangements will be applied to all welfare payments made by the Australian Government to a person with a conviction for hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. The Coalition will consider extending this policy to people convicted of criminal offences related to other drugs, including cannabis, in light of experience in implementing this phase of the policy. Legislation will be required. This measure will take effect from December 2008 and will apply to anyone convicted from that date.
This measure will cost $20 million to 2010-11 and will involve the financial case management of welfare payments for up to 6,000 convicted drug criminals a year who do not have custodial sentences.