Showing posts with label Ice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ice. Show all posts

Thursday 25 October 2012

One Year On ... Some Things Never Change

My life has changed somewhat since I officially ended The Australian Heroin Diaries over 12 months ago. And by far, the biggest change has been the amount of free time I now have. I never realised how much time actually went into my website. Just having time to surf the web without sniffing out drug related issues is so refreshing. Now I have some resemblance of a normal life with more time for work and other interests. But the itch to restart The Australian Heroin Diaries has at times been overwhelming especially when I keep getting emails from readers and comments are still being posted on my website.

For those who may be interested, I no longer use drugs and I'm living a happy, productive life on the NSW coast. My reliance on SROM has dropped to half the dose I was on just over a year ago. I still pinch myself sometimes to see if it's all not just a dream. I feel the last 16 years have been a blur to the point where it's almost surreal. Did all this really happen to me? A confident professional with fantastic friends, a great family, a new house, a successful business and a plan to marry the love of my life? What possibly could have gone wrong? Anyway, that is in the past now and I have much to look forward to. My depression has almost gone and I have someone special in my life. Work is great and I have got back much of what made me who I am.

Unfortunately, my return for this article is not just a simple update but the scary realisation that we still have a long way to go. On a recent visit to Victoria, I caught a glimpse of the Channel 7 news and up pops that bearded burbler called Hinch. Now I have no real qualms with Hinch but also don't have that much interest either in his self assigned role as our moral saviour. Sure, he has some worthy pet issues (as we all do) but calling himself the human headline probably sums up the style and depth of the journalism he dishes out. But what I heard that night sent shivers down my spine and brought back the bitter distaste I had for drug hysteria, moral crusaders and those who abuse the drug issue for personal gain. I suppose you could drop me into the last category but at least I try to base my ramblings on research and facts. Maybe it's something Hinch might want to try.



The first surprise with the Hinch story was that he had resurfaced that stale myth called the ice epidemic. I thought that went out of flavour years ago. Maybe it's part genius to once again capitalise on scaring the bajesus out of suburban housewives and the largely ignorant public especially since the issue had faded into drug propaganda history years ago. His claim that ice was going to rewrite history as the greatest drug threat society will ever see waddled off into the pond of obscurity a long time ago. Of course, the ice carnage promised by various drug warriors never materialised and they simply moved on to other critical issues like Korean rap singers and Matthew Newton. So why now Mr. Hinch?

What did Hunch say that provoked me to write a whole article after being away for so long? Well, if there was a list of every myth and lie that has been said about the so called ice epidemic then Hinch must have it. Super addictive, epidemic proportions, giving users super human strength, our worst drug problem ever etc. etc. According to Hinch, our worst drug problem ever has Ambulance call outs rising by 107% from 136 to 282. Yup, that's 282 ambulance call outs. Hardly a national crisis. If anything, it shows that the recent policy of not charging drug effected people when calling an ambulance is working.

It makes people psychotic. Puts police, emergency services and members of the public at risk. And can give users almost super human strength.
--Derryn Hinch. Channel 7 News

Like so many anti-drug stories, the lack of research, popular myths and fuzzy facts blur the reality for the sake of ratings. Some bearded buffoon banging on about addicts robbing your house and hulk like, drugged out maniacs attacking members of the public makes for good viewing. I'm sure the fact that most people affected by ice are more likely to cuddle you to death than belting you won't win over any viewers especially when we are constantly bombarded by such ridiculous claims like those by Hinch. The perception that everyone on ice is a raving lunatic wanting to rob or bash you is so far from the truth that it makes me dizzy. Contrary to most media reporting, amphetamines are well known to cause over friendliness, make people talk too much and want to have sex. Sure, there will be some who become violent but not anymore than the national average of drunken youth out on the town. Adding the "psychotic" tag is bound to help garnish up images of frenzied junkies wanting to bash and rob our grandmas. Luckily, it's just junk journalism at it's worst.

“Most methamphetamine users do not become psychotic. There are some people who do, a minority who do, and that's usually related to extended periods of binge using, with people not sleeping, not eating - that sort of thing,"
"The vast majority of people use methamphetamine very occasionally recreationally, perhaps on the weekend or something, and they're not going to get to that point."
--Annie Madden. AIVL

If there are so many ice "addicts" and it's such an epidemic then why aren't the night clubs actually fight clubs? Where's the reports of frenzied bloodbaths in a club full of drugged out ice users? The fact is that any amphetamine such as ice usually makes you friendly towards others much like low doses of alcohol does. But like Alcohol, too much can have the opposite affect. We tend to forget that alcohol is the single most violent drug on earth and the violence associated with ice is usually because of the copious amounts of booze they consumed while out on the town. Add to that the ability of ice to keep you up for days and you get the nasty combination of sleep deprivation and several days of drinking condensed into a short period. This is where most of trouble occurs.

Because there has been such extensive media coverage of this purported relationship between violence and ice use, what we get now when we talk to service providers, is a reproduction of the messages that the media are portraying. So, when someone walks into the service and they might be agitated or violent, very quickly the service provider says, !!!OOh, they must be on ice.!!!  And so, you get this reproduction of the message that is actually communicated in the media, rather than one that is based on evidence and based on good clinical practice. We weren’t receiving news amongst the service providers of high levels of violence related to methamphetamine use five years ago, when the peak of methamphetamine use was occurring in Australia. We are seeing that now.
--Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne

Methamphetamine is a dangerous drug when abused. But so is alcohol. It seems a wee bit hypocritical that someone renown for their boozy lunches and capacity to drink several bottles of wine in a single sitting is taking a swipe at ice users. But hypocrisy and stupidity form the basis for most anti-drug stories. Hinch and the police rattle on about ice being responsible for 80% of crime and how violent these druggies are. They even make it point to tell us that desperation drives them to commit serious crimes. Surprise, surprise ... none of these crimes would happen if we had different laws. Boozers don't commit crimes to buy their drug of choice because it's legal and when they have a problem, we give them medical treatment not jail.

The biggest give away though to expose Hinch's rant as a poorly researched puff piece is that he complains there is no specific treatment for ice abuse and no legal substitute drug like methadone is for heroin addicts. It takes a mere 10 minutes of research to discover that substitution treatment is solely for addictive drugs that cause no physical harm e.g heroin. Amphetamines like alcohol have a devastating effect on you physically and using these drugs daily will not only fry your brain but inflict massive harm to your body. And since amphetamines are not physically addictive but physiologically dependant, substitution treatment would be pointless. It's just sloppy research by Hinch. But who cares? Some media personality with a degree in gravel collecting must know more than the hundreds of experts who spend their lives researching this stuff.

Although this is a serious issue, there is an amusing side to it. Hinch says that ice can give users almost super human strength. Really?! Super human strength … like Captain America? Pffft. For the record, no drug can instantly give you extra strength. Muscles do not magically grow because you smoke ice. It may boost your adrenaline levels but you still have the same strength with or without ice. Ironically, it's the legal drug, alcohol that causes the aggression and wild thrashing that many blame on ice. You know, the drug that Hinch was once infamous for abusing (or as he so delicately puts it, it was ‘all part of life’s rich tapestry’). The silly argument about street drugs giving users super human strength is as bizarre as believing in the science behind the Hulk. It's pure fiction and was debunked decades ago when PCP was making it's rounds in the 1980s. Do you remember decades ago when reports of drugged out super humans lifting up cars and taking on a dozen police officers were part of the war on drugs? Even a few years ago, there were hospitals being coerced into building "safe rooms" and deploying security guards to protect workers from crazy, iced up supermen? Well, this bizarre claim was dismissed as a media beat up by irresponsible, second rate journalists and simply another attempt by anti-drug nutters to bluff the public. It seems like some things will never change.


Related Articles


Tuesday 28 September 2010

The Propaganda Files - The Faces of Meth

The Facts: The Montana Meth Project (Faces of Meth) Does Not Work
Methamphetamine use was trending downward already, and the research shows that the project has had no discernable impact on meth use
--D. Mark Anderson: UW doctoral student in economics.

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




Organisation: Montana Meth Project
Campaign: Faces of Meth
When: 2004 -
Propaganda: 6/10
Laugh Out Loud Rating: 7/10



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

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


Montana Meth Project Didn't Reduce Use, Study Finds

Stop The Drug War (Issue #650)
by Phillip Smith
September 2010 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


More from the Propaganda Files

Thursday 3 July 2008

AMA Pushing Zero Tolerance (Ice - More Drug Myths Pt II)

UPDATE:

Ice - More Drug Myths Part II

AMA Pushing Zero Tolerance

I recently wrote an article, Ice - More Drug Myths about the hysteria surrounding ‘Ice’ and the non existent epidemic. The AMA has joined in with the hysteria and put out a position statement that is reminiscent of the sensationalist type stories usually left to the Daily Telegraph or the HeraldSun.

=====================================================================================

DIARY: Amphetamines and the stronger version, methamphetamines are dangerous, powerful drugs. Abusing them increases the chance of dependancy, psychosis and other mental health problems. Like all powerful drugs, some people will have problems with them and these are the people who are regularly used as an example of what may happen if you decide to partake. Yes, there are some sad tales of abuse and the safest way to deal with amphetamines and methamphetamines is simply not to take them. Like climbing a mountain, there are risks involved and you would take every precaution possible to reach the top safely. Fucked if I know why someone would want to climb a mountain but if you’re going to take drugs, you need to apply the same principles. Your activity can be dangerous but the experience for some is worth it. Of course this is the same with most drugs including alcohol and cannabis. The key here is abuse or taking anything in excess.

What is rarely told though, is that if taken in moderation, the long term effects of amphetamines are minimal. Also these drugs are usually taken because they are enjoyable. The MSM and those pushing the anti-drug agenda have led us all to believe that normal, everyday people don’t take drugs and are only taken by those who are damaged or have a death wish. This is simple not reality. The fact is that taking drugs can be fun and they are enjoyed by millions of people each week. Whether it’s morally right or not isn’t a concern to most people except those who don’t take them. Thieving, murder and assault are moral issues, not drug taking. If your drug taking doesn’t effect others, it’s really your choice and not moralists nor the government.

Speed and alcohol were my drugs of choice for many years before I became addicted to heroin. Out of all the people who I knew who took speed, I was the only one to have a problem. I had always been a big drinker since my early teens and speed allowed me to drink for days. I must admit, they were some of the best times I ever had. I met lots of great people, had lots of sex and partied hard. Overuse though took it’s toll and I moved interstate to escape the scene I was in. It was really hard to stop thinking of speed. Every weekend, I had great difficulty going out and was often bored because of not taking speed. After a year or two, I got back to normal and returned home but still alcohol played a big part in my socialising. Kicking any amphetamine type drug is hard and drawn out. Amphetamine dependancy is not like heroin addiction. You can go days or weeks without amphetamines but heroin withdrawal starts within hours. Although heroin/opiates are physically addictive, amphetamines are not. I didn't have any physical withdrawal symptoms at all when I stopped taking speed because I didn't use everyday but on weekends.

I was a weekend warrior where I had to have speed every weekend or I was bored out of mind. My usage increased after a while and I was ‘speeding’ from Friday night to Sunday morning. Sundays and increasingly, Mondays were a write-off. Luckily I earned a good wage but it still played havoc on my finances. The real killer was the bar priced drinks which I often shouted because of my speed induced friendliness and taking multiple taxis to the next phase of a speed/alcohol binge. Speed gave me confidence and I made friends very quickly which was exciting for a 21 year old. I had a great group of friends, a high powered job, went to clubs and parties every weekend and got more sex than Frank Sinatra ... it was wonderful. 

After quitting, I got used to not taking speed because my use revolved around the weekends. During the week, I was just another nobody, going to work, watching TV and following a losing football team. I went through stages of running or swimming where my main excess was cooking. I maybe went out once through the week, usually to a restaurant with friends and a good red wine or three. Weekends were usually boozy on Friday or Saturday night but I still had great fun. My favourite pastime was definitely an Asian restaurant with friends, drinking lots of red wine, smoking lots of cigarettes and talking shit. Then back to someone’s house for more drinking lots of red wine, smoking lots of cigarettes and talking shit. Though speed was on my mind, my use was limited to 3 or 4 weekends a year.

I don't get to use speed much anymore. First of all I rarely drink and the two go together for me. Secondly, speed is for partying and that is not part of my life anymore.

=====================================================================================

Australia in general has a checkered history with alarmist reporting concerning amphetamines and now the The Australian Medical Association (AMA) have joined in. Recently. a press conference was held for the ‘AMA's Position Statement on Methamphetamine’ and there were some remarkable comments made.

 They [ice users] can be quite violent and aggressive, they're threatening to the staff in the hospital and to other patients here.

-Dr Rosanna Capolingua. AMA President.

The AMA are recommending that special units be set up at hospitals to deal with ice users. Acknowledging the dangers of drugs is fine but shooting off media friendly and alarmist statements doesn’t help anyone. The whole event was a jumble of odd statistics and the familiar drug hysteria usually confined to Zero Tolerance weirdoes. Standard prohibitionist tactics like misused terminology and links to major mental health problems seem to be the new face of the AMA. 

Over three-quarters of ice users or methamphetamine users - so we'd be talking about speed as well here - actually develop serious mental health problems. Over three-quarters of those, so we're talking about depression and anxiety, lack of motivation, agitation and inability to concentrate.

We've seen the violence, we see it in emergency departments and we also see it out on the streets. Many stories in the news feature violent episodes associated with methamphetamine use, and of course three-out-of-ten methamphetamine users will also develop psychosis.

We're talking significant serious mental illness. These people are hurt and damaged by methamphetamine use; we have to encourage people not to use this drug and we have to help those that have been caught in its trap.

-Dr Rosanna Capolingua. AMA President.

This is just wrong. The term user is being blurred with someone who has a dependancy problem. 3 in 10 DEPENDANT USERS will have psychotic symptoms, not 3 in 10 users as stated. A huge difference. I would love to know where figures came from for the claim, three-quarters of methamphetamine will develop serious mental health issues. I have never heard this before.

The term ‘psychosis’ is also thrown around loosely and portrayed as some major flip out where the user turns into the Hulk. Most “psychotic episodes’ last for 2-3 hours and is more common than we think. 

Referencing the MSM as evidence of a epidemic is worrying when it’s coming from the president of the AMA. This is a tactic used by ultra conservative politicians or nutter organisations like Drug Free Australia (DFA) and is not acceptable coming from a so-called medical organisation. 

The Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) welcomed the AMA's call for funding, but had some concerns. Annie Madden from AIVL rightly pointed out that violence from methamphetamines users is usually because of associated circumstances and most problems come from dependant users who are the minority.

“Most methamphetamine users do not become psychotic. There are some people who do, a minority who do, and that's usually related to extended periods of binge using, with people not sleeping, not eating - that sort of thing," 

"The vast majority of people use methamphetamine very occasionally recreationally, perhaps on the weekend or something, and they're not going to get to that point."

-Annie Madden. AIVL

The approach of the AMA is counter productive and will cause further alienation of dependant users. The main theme was the violence surrounding methamphetamine users. For medical body like the AMA to resort to junk science and using the MSM as a basis for their ‘evidence’ is worrying. Only this week, the AMA have put out a fear based brochure that flies in the face of scientific evidence. Yes there are dangers but statements giving the impression that cannabis is more dangerous than it really is, does not help the goal of reduced drug use. We, as a society are past that. The massive carnage to society caused by fear tactics and harsh policing does not work. We rely on organisations like the AMA to stick to medical facts, not do the job of the prohibitionists. There’s enough of those already.

New focus on cannabis dangers needed: AMA

ABC Website

The Australian Medical Association says there needs to be a new focus on alerting people to the dangers of cannabis. The AMA has launched a new brochure warning about the short and long-term effects of the drug. AMA president Dr Rosanna Capolingua says too many people still think of cannabis as a soft drug.

"Cannabis use is something that has increased in society overall over time and really there's been more and more evidence coming out of late of the effect of cannabis," she said.

"So with evidence around the mental health issues associated with cannabis, it's time to alert people."

"To alert young people in particular not to take up the use of drugs such as cannabis, and to certainly let people who use cannabis on a regular basis, or even sporadically, let them know what it is that it can do to them."

Back to methamphetamines. I had a look at a report from National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) regarding methamphetamines. It seems to contradict the severity of the methamphetamine problem or the ‘Ice Epidemic’ that the AMA has decided is worth losing their integrity about.

A report from National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)

Aggression and ice

Aggression is also one of the problems that people worry about when one of their friends or family use ice. The relationship between ice use and aggression is not straight-forward. Ice use can increase aggression, but not all users become aggressive when they take ice. It is not clear why some people are more prone to violent behaviour than others, but some of the things that probably play a role are: 

  • Alcohol
  • Withdrawal from drugs, especially heroin
  • Barbiturate use
  • Personality
  • Not eating
  • Certain medical conditions (E.G. diabetes, brain tumours) 
  • Ice can also worsen someone’s response if they are angry for some other reason (e.g. fights over money or relationship problems), because of its adrenaline-like properties. 

Psychosis

Methamphetamine use can induce a brief psychosis consisting of paranoia and hallucinations, and can also worsen symptoms among people who have schizophrenia or other chronic psychotic disorders. Around three in ten dependent methamphetamine users will experience psychotic symptoms during a given year. Symptoms usually last up to 2-3 hours, but sometimes symptoms last longer and can lead to the person being hospitalised. 

Methamphetamine Use and Crime 

Types of Crime 

  • Dealing drugs and theft are common crimes among regular methamphetamine users. Almost three-quarters have committed these types of crimes in their lifetime. 
  • Thirty per cent of methamphetamine users report dealing drugs in the past month, and almost one in five committed a property crime during that time.
  • Fraud and violent crime are less common among methamphetamine users than drug dealing and theft. 
  • Just under one-third of methamphetamine users have committed these types of crimes in their lifetime, and less than one in ten have committed them in the past month. 
  • Violent crime is no more common among methamphetamine users than among other heavy drug users
  • Methamphetamine users who do commit violent crimes are likely to have a pre-existing tendency toward antisocial behaviour

Who commits crime? 

Methamphetamine users who are most likely to be involved in crime: 

    • use methamphetamine heavily (i.e., at least several times a week) 
    • use the more pure forms of ‘base’ methamphetamine and crystalline methamphetamine, or ‘ice’
    • also use heroin and a range of other drugs – are younger drug users (late teens or twenties) 
    • have a predisposition toward antisocial behaviour 

Reasons for crime 

  • Crime among methamphetamine users can be due to a need to fund drug use, particularly in situations where the person is using a lot of methamphetamine (or other drugs) and they are on a low income. 
  • A proportion of methamphetamine users also commit crimes because they have a predisposition to engage in crime, rather than because of their methamphetamine use. 

Information based on the findings from: 

McKetin, R., McLaren, J., and Kelly, E. (2005). The Sydney methamphetamine market: Patterns of supply, use, personal harms and social consequences. National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund Monograph Series No. 13. Australasian Centre for Policing Research, Adelaide. 

Produced by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2006. 

Saturday 26 April 2008

Ice - More Drug Myths

Contrary to popular drug policy discourses that portray drug users as descending from first use into a hell of dependence and addiction, a new analysis of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) suggests that most first-time users of most drugs were not using them a year later and that for nearly all illicit drugs, more than 90% of first-time users did not become dependent.

-Drug War Chronicle, Issue #532, 4/18/08

One of the common myths put out by the the previous & current governments is that ice is highly addictive, if not instantly addictive. This new finding, again proves that governments are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of public money on misinformation with no evidence or, as in this case, research.

Mr Pyne said a special target of the new funding was use of the highly addictive and dangerous drug “ice”.

-Health Budget 2007-2008

Ex PM, John Howard & Current PM, Kevin Rudd were once falling over each other to be the “toughest on drugs” especially concerning the “scourge of ice” as Rudd once put it. The “ice” epidemic had hit Australia and there was much political point scoring to be made. They weren’t the only ones in on the act though, Chris Pyne, Bromwyn Bishop, Peter Debnam, Morris Iemma, etc. were adamant unless something was done, ice was going to bring society to it’s knees much like the crack/cocaine explosion in the the US during the late 1980s. Society survived.

Interviewer:

"My guests today in Melbourne University Up Close are Associate Professor John Fitzgerald and Dr. Fances Bramwell.

So, John, essentially what you are saying is that, in Australia there is no epidemic of ice use.”

Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne: 

“Yeah, and it is not to say that ice use is not problematic.”

-Melbourne University Up Close Episode 15

So much for the ice epidemic.

Although the current government is still too nervous to declare any real drug policy except to be “tough on drugs”, the previous Howard government were extremely focussed. A new government initiative called Zero Tolerance was introduced during the Howard reign and was in direct conflict with Australia’s official drug policy of Harm Minimisation. The underlying Zero Tolerance theme of stronger law enforcement and/or harsher penalties for users and dealers were media favourites and appealed to the Murdoch masses. Zero Tolerance also focussed on the constant damnation of the less dangerous recreational drugs like marijuana and ecstasy (the 2 biggest killers, alcohol and tobacco were conveniently mostly overlooked) and were also lapped up by the MSM. But the biggest initiative was a targeted campaign against ice.

The Government is investing $9.2 million over two years in new funding to expand the next stage of the NDC to include a focus on ice, because of its particularly addictive and dangerous qualities. The campaign will continue to target other amphetamines, as well as ecstasy and cannabis.

-Health Budget 2007-2008

The AFP and John Howard claimed the “heroin epidemic” ended because of their tough and successful strategies but the “ice epidemic” proved that wasn’t the case at all. The manufacturing of heroin had simply been dropped in favour for production of amphetamines which was more convenient and suited a changing market by the same crime organisations in S.E. Asia. Ice had snuck up on them and rather than look incompetent, they engaged ice as the new epidemic. There were several anti ice advertising campaigns depicting unrealistic and rare situations that were standard fare when it came to drug hysteria. The ads included an office worker unable to sleep after smoking the drug; a man flying into a psychotic rage in a hospital, fighting policemen and smashing a window; A young woman compulsively picking at her skin because she thinks there are bugs under there; and a young man fighting with his mother. There was even a full colour glossy booklet to help parents detect if their children were potential drug abusers. Add to that, the constant beefed up reports of “manic” or “violent” ice abusers in the MSM and addiction was a foregone conclusion along with the image of rabid and desperate ice addicts ripping up hospitals and family homes. The core of Zero Tolerance is misinformation and fear - and it works. The problem was, no real research into ice had previously been undertaken and ecstasy was proving to be a lot less harmful than first thought. But like all moral based strategies, evidence wasn’t such an issue and panic had already taken a hold of the public’s attention, giving plenty of room to fight this new scourge.

The graphic nature of it is to show the dangers of continued use but also to scare people about trying it in the first place because we haven't got accurate figures on how addictive it is. We know it's addictive, but because it's sort of clandestine, we think it can be up to 40 per cent addictive. In other words 40 per cent of people who take it can get addicted to it. And that's horrendous.

-John Herron, Chairman - The Australian National Council on Drugs

Terminology has always been a tool for politicians but Howard made it a weapon. Just like Rudd’s conversion of getting drunk into binge drinking, Howard turned dependancies into addictions, recreational drug use into drug abuse, zero tolerance into harm prevention (to allow confusion with harm minimisation) etc. There has always been a finite line between the addiction and dependence but drug propaganda has blurred them together as addiction. The government and many drug clinics now often class ice as a highly addictive drug to further demonise it. The fact is though, amphetamines form a dependancy, not an addiction. The same goes for marijuana. 

While the myths of ice addiction are being exposed I probably should summarise the popular beliefs the are part of government propaganda and media hysteria. 

Ice is not addictive, Ice is not a new drug, there never was an ice epidemic, ice is not usually a violent drug and ice does not cause schizophrenia.

Ice is simply methamphetamine made for smoking and methamphetamine is a stronger form of amphetamine. Smoking ice has the same effect as injecting strong speed ... a euphoric rush. It’s been around since the late sixties but Korea and Taiwan who are part our main illicit drug region have ramped up production which is why ice is now more common. 

Schizophrenia is generally permanent, incurable and require large doses of strong medications in order to keep it under minimal control. Amphetamines do not cause these diseases. They can, however, cause the user to temporarily suffer symptoms (hallucinations, paranoia) which are associated with psychosis and schizophrenia. These are generally brought on by inducing large quantities and/or taking them for several consecutive days. Hallucinations are brought on not so much by the direct action of the drug but by sleep deprivation. 

The violence associated with ice is mostly a beatup by the sensationalist MSM. The “violent episodes” are usually the result of bingeing on any amphetamine over 2 or more days and almost always, alcohol is a contributing factor. The mixture of sleep deprivation, constant alertness, gallons of alcohol and amphetamines can lead to some naturally aggressive individuals to be contrived as having an ice flipout. Most ice experiences do not show any aggression let alone violence. Amphetamines are renown for causing over friendliness and tend to make people talk too much or want to have sex rather than become violent. 

Between the alcoholics, the heroin addicts, and the ice users, we have incidents here most days. Probably twice a week, they!|d be violent. Mostly, they!|re verbal. Ice users are not the majority. The majority of problem people are alcoholics.

-Dr. Chris Towey. D & A doctor from a clinic in Broadmeadows

The MSM are notorious for declaring that society is deteriorating from various causes especially drugs. Though ice has been around for nearly 40 years and similar effects can be achieved from injecting methamphetamines, a media panic started not long after heroin became less prominent in the media. As the government cranked up the ice rhetoric so did the media’s reporting of violent incidents. The truth is, there have always been violent incidents involving drug use and the main cause is alcohol but with a slight increase of aggressive behaviour involving methamphetamines, the time was ripe for a new epidemic to catch the media’s eye. 

Because there has been such extensive media coverage of this purported relationship between violence and ice use, what we get now when we talk to service providers, is a reproduction of the messages that the media are portraying. So, when someone walks into the service and they might be agitated or violent, very quickly the service provider says, !!!OOh, they must be on ice.!!!  And so, you get this reproduction of the message that is actually communicated in the media, rather than one that is based on evidence and based on good clinical practice. We weren’t receiving news amongst the service providers of high levels of violence related to methamphetamine use five years ago, when the peak of methamphetamine use was occurring in Australia. We are seeing that now.

-Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne

So another new study of current data is performed and it shines more light on some well known myths. Unfortunately for the current and previous governments, it contradicts their opinion based policies. This brings into question, the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on forcing misinformation onto the Australian public. An innocent mistake is fine but the depth the government and government funded NGOs went to without sufficient information or any research is inexcusable.

Such data may not fit some popular narratives about drug use -- particularly the widely-held notion that methamphetamine is "more addictive" than other substances -- but that's what the numbers say.

-Drug War Chronicle, Issue #532, 4/18/08

The Facts:

•Ice is not a new drug

•There never was an ice epidemic

•Ice is NOT addictive.

•Ice is not usually a violent drug

•Ice does not cause schizophrenia

•No drug is instantly addictive. Some drugs can cause addiction after prolonged use.

•More than 90% of first-time users of all drugs(except alcohol) do not become dependent

•5% of first time amphetamine (ice, ecstasy, speed) users became dependent after one year

•6% of first time marijuana users became dependent after one year

•13% of first time heroin users became dependent after one year

•Marijuana is NOT addictive**

•Ecstasy is NOT addictive*

•Speed is NOT addictive*

•Ice is NOT addictive*

•LSD is NOT addictive

•Inhalants are NOT addictive

•Heroin is addictive

•Cocaine is addictive

•Alcohol is addictive

•Tobacco is addictive

•Benzodiazepines are addictive

etc.

*  These drugs are can form a severe long term dependancy if abused for too long.

** For a small number of people, a dependancy can occur if abused for too long.  

Sunday 13 April 2008

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

1/    Ask yourself why you think addicts should not just be given the drug they crave. 

2/   Ask yourself why do you feel this way.

Some of you will think "I'm not subsidising their habit" or "they should be trying to get clean". Some will just laugh it off as ridiculous while thinking that "junkies are scum" and just piss weak. Lock them up, that will clean the streets up. Where do these opinions come from? Why are some people so strongly opinionated against giving heroin to addicts? Why do some see it as perfect common sense? Those who want prescription heroin are either related to the issue or have spent the time to do some real research or have the facts. On the other hand, those opinions that reject the idea of prescription heroin are derived from common sources such as the MSM, religious groups or peer groups and family. Out of these sources, the MSM effects the largest group but are more open to change. Those who have formed their opinions because of religion or being part of a conservative community will most probably never change their minds. 

Anti heroin crusaders including the MSM often leave out facts or demonise heroin to a point where fear takes over rational debate. Heroin is a 100 year old medication that has had very little problems until it was declared evil by the US. There were very few heroin users before the 1920s and were mainly white, middle class doctors. Addicts were prescribed heroin or morphine and lived normal productive lives as there was almost no street level dealing, no crime and no violence. This changed when the US made all heroin illegal. New users have increased in the western world as the laws got tougher. The UK never had a problem until they stopped supplying most addicts with heroin in the 1960s and 1970s. Even if heroin was totally legalised, there is NO evidence that new users would increase or addiction levels would rise. In fact a survey in 6 publications showed that less than 1% would use heroin or cocaine if available legally. Funny enough, addiction levels in the US have never changed and has remained constant at 1.3% from the day this information was first recorded up until today. Heroin is still used medically in countries such as England, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway  and Switzerland.   

For the average Joe, the idea of giving heroin to junkies must seem ludicrous at best. They know that junkies live in abandoned factories, have dark heavy set eyes and beg on the streets for money. They know how weak these junkies are and they made their own bed, so they have to sleep in it. If junkies were serious about getting clean they can do. Many have done it already so the junkies who continue to use drugs are doing it because they want to. No one is forcing the drugs into their bodies. Cracking down harder on the long term junky who can't even finish their detox, will send the message that the government is serious about being tough on drugs. When faced with court, give them the choice of rehab or jail. That will clean up the streets and allow those who made a mistake to redeem themselves. Simple really.

This is also the default government approach and it reflects in our drug policy. Here lies the problem. ... most experts and doctors in the field disagree with the current policies. You should really be asking yourself if  you trust your own opinion regardless of where you got it from or should you instead listen to doctors and scientists who have spent their lives studying addiction.

The case for prescription heroin has been highlighted constantly for over a decade and grows each year. If most of the experts agree that prescription heroin is working overseas why isn't it a priority in Australia instead of applying the same "tough on drugs" strategy that have been a complete failure for the last 40 years? Many countries now prescribe heroin after rigourous testing and research. 

These countries have completed a heroin trial or can prescribe legal heroin to addicts: England, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany.

The success of the heroin trials have been much documented by the medical industry with many other countries now looking into it as a solution to their own problems. The negative press is always biased and easily debunked with simple facts and figures. Similar criticisms from social conservatives are always without evidence and based on personal opinions only.

'The evidence is already in that such approaches are foolish, and have wider ramifications than are usually considered in "evidence based" trials - especially trials by researchers with a predisposition to distribute heroin rather than minimise its use.' 

-Andrew Bolt

The success of heroin trials is heavily documented and the approval of several major countries to make prescription heroin part of their drug policies, should be evidence enough for at least a trial in Australia. You will find so many cases for prescription heroin on the internet but rarely will you find a case against. Reports by experts, doctors, welfare groups, scientists, politicians, law enforcement officers, judges, senators etc. singing the success of prescription heroin can leave no doubt. For  years there has been constant brainwashing from governments, moralist and the media that total abstinence is the only path and if you disagree, you are "soft on drugs". Well now there is no excuse to fall for these fear tactics and it's time to be pragmatic. Get past the terminology and let facts speak for themselves.

At the same time, the addicts were receiving their daily fix, they were also enrolled in health, social and psychological services, Ms. Gurtner said. ''Heroin was the cookie to get them inside. Then we try to work with them in a comprehensive way.''

As a result, program officials said, crime decreased 90 percent among participants, who are mostly around 30. New H.I.V. and hepatitis infections dropped markedly, the number capable of working doubled, and individual heroin doses decreased. About 80 people -- including 5 in Thun -- chose to enter abstinence programs.

-New York Times

Heroin Myths & Misconceptions

Drugscope U.K.

Article

Instant addiction

That heroin is addictive is a fact. Heroin is not however, instantly or even nearly instantly addictive (neither is crack cocaine or any other substance). This idea is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of addiction and the supposed power of the drug. Research consistently shows that becoming addicted to any drug takes time, usually at least 2-3 months (often much longer) where the user builds up to regular daily use. No drug has the power to instantly addict a user. This is a myth which often gets reinvented by the media (often due to authorities such as the police or politicians making such a statement) each time a `new' drug comes on the scene (witness 'crack', 'ice'). Usually the new drug is not a new drug at all.

Controlled heroin use

Heroin use in many cases leads to heroin addiction. However there are also many occasional or 'controlled' heroin (and other drug) users who are capable of using the drug with informal controls/constraints on their using behaviour e.g. using only at weekends, never on a working day, never alone, never with children around etc. In some cases such use can go on indefinitely with little physical harm accruing to the user. It is not uncommon for the drug use of such users to be unknown by those close to them.

Heroin is relatively non-toxic

Heroin itself is relatively non-toxic (it doesn't destroy skin tissue or other cells in the body as does alcohol and tobacco). Most of the health problems that stem from heroin use are life-style related or linked to the route of administration (injecting drug use for example - through sharing needles or improper use - often leads to various blood-borne diseases or viruses such as HIV or Hepatitis B/C and/or abscess or collapsed veins).

Heroin itself cannot give you spots, make you thin etc. as suggested by previous 'educational' campaigns. Those with the resources to buy their heroin without it impacting on money for food or personal welfare and who are careful about how they administer the drug, can live a generally healthy lifestyle.

Although overdose, (fatal and otherwise) can result from heroin use, it is rare that this is solely the result of heroin use alone.

Heroin is not cut with dangerous substances

Heroin is almost never purposely adulterated ('cut') with dangerous substances, despite popular belief that it is.

Addiction is not forever

Heroin addiction is not necessarily a 'life sentence'. Many heroin addicts 'mature out' of their addiction. The research literature reports extensive evidence of 'spontaneous remission' and 'maturing out' that demonstrates that even the most chronic of addicts may leave their addiction behind them when their circumstances change, (e.g. new partner/child/job/perspective on the world, fed up with lifestyle/being arrested/having no money/having no relationships with family/friends/children etc). This relates primarily to ideas around 'addiction pathways' and undermines simplistic ideas of addiction being primarily bio-chemical in nature.

References

Brecht, M.-L. & Anglin, M. D. (1993) Conditional factors of maturing out of narcotics addiction: Long term relationships. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association. 209-214.

Edwards, G. and Lader, M. (eds.) (1991) The Nature of Drug Dependence, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pearson, G. (1987) The New Heroin Users, London, Blackwell.

Waldorf, D. & Biernacki, P. (1980) 'Natural recovery from heroin addiction: A review of the incidence literature', in, Norman E. Zinberg, M.D. and Wayne Harding, Ed.M. (eds.) Control Over Intoxicant Use:Pharmacological, Psychological and Social Considerations. Cambridge, Mass.

Waldorf, D., Reinarman, C., & Murphy, S. (1991). Cocaine changes: The experience of using and quitting. Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

Kaplan, J. (1985) The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Public Policy, Chicago, University of Chicago Press

Morgan, J. and Zimmer, L. 'The Social Pharmacology of Smokable Cocaine: Not All I'ts Cracked Up to be' in Reinarman, C. & Levine, H. (eds.) Crack in America, London, University of California Press

Newcombe, R. & Matthews, L. (1994) 'Crack in Liverpool: A Preliminary Study of a Group of Cocaine Smokers', in Coomber, R. (ed.), Drugs and Drug Use in Society: A Critical Reader, Dartford., Greenwich University Press.

WHO/UNICRI (1995). Cocaine Project. Geneva: World Health Organization

Harding, W. and Zinberg, N. E. (1977) 'The Effectiveness of the Subculture in Developing Rituals and Social Sanctions for Controlled Drug Use' in Brian M. DuToit, (ed). Drugs, Rituals and Altered States of Consciousness, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam

Zinberg, N. (1994) Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use, New York, Yale University Press

Blackwell, J. S. (1982). Drifting, controlling and overcoming: opiate users who avoid becoming chronically dependent. Journal of Drug Issues, 13, 219-235

WHO/UNICRI (1995). Cocaine Project. Geneva: World Health Organization