Showing posts with label Propaganda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Propaganda. Show all posts

Sunday 5 June 2011

Pollie Waffle

Blah blah blah ...
Image by Petula Bloomfield 
Have you ever wondered what happens when you send a letter to a politician? Do they read it? Do one of their lackeys reply for them or do they just bin your letter? 

I must admit that I have received some responses from politicians that have been answered personally. In general though, most responses from politicians are stock standard replies that somehow miss the point of your concerns and end up being promotional advertising for their party. 

I wrote to the Victorian Minister for Mental Health, The Hon. Mary Wooldridge MP and voiced my concerns that she was a keynote speaker at the 2011 VAADA Conference. (VAADA - The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association Inc.). I thought it was a bit strange for a politician to speak at a conference held for professionals in the AOD industry considering her support for banning drug paraphernalia which most members of VAADA opposed.

My letter to Minister Wooldridge simply asked what her response would be if most of the experts at the VAADA conference either told her and/or presented evidence that the government's proposed banning of drug paraphernalia would do more harm than good. A question that really only has one answer. 

I implore you to ask for the views of those who deal with drug issues on a daily basis. The 2011 VAADA Conference is an ideal event to find out what the professionals think about banning bongs. If anyone has an insight into the issue it’s those attending the conference. They are experts who spend their lives researching and dealing with drugs. 
-Extract from my letter to Victorian Minister for Mental Health, The Hon. Mary Wooldridge MP

The theme of the conference was Transitions: people, policy, practice implies change and moving forward and the program will focus on the transitions and movements within the alcohol and other drug (AOD) field as we move towards 2020.

The conference asks the questions:
-What does the next decade hold for alcohol and other drug treatment?
-What are the current strengths and weaknesses of drug treatment?
-How can we reshape public debate about alcohol and drugs?
-How do we build a drug treatment system for the future?

How does Mary Wooldridge MP fit into this? The new Victorian Liberal government (with her support) wants drug paraphernalia banned although there is absolutely no evidence that it will achieve the desired outcome of reducing drug use. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence though that not having access to certain drug using equipment can help cause severe harm to drug users. Why would VAADA choose someone like Mary Wooldridge to be a keynote speaker when the theme of the conference is about moving forward with better drug policies and wiser practices for dealing with drug users?

First up, here is my letter to the Victorian Minister for Mental Health.

Dear Mary

I notice you are a keynote speaker at the 2011 VAADA Conference. This year’s theme is Transitions: people, policy, practice which implies change and moving forward.

I would like to know your reaction if most of the attendees agree that our current drug policies have failed and need to change. Will you change your decision to ban drug paraphernalia (cannabis smoking equipment) if most of the attendees think it is a mistake? Will you take into account their views if they feel that banning bongs will not deter drug use and may actually cause serious harm or even death to some people? 

Most importantly, will you reconsider your position if the latest quantified research clearly shows that what they say is true? Will you base your decision on evidence or anti-drug rhetoric and popular myths? 

The fact is, most of the public do not want bongs banned. Either do most health professionals, drug experts and AOD workers. Although the general public mightn’t solely base their decision on scientific data, health professionals, drug experts and AOD workers do. Your decision on whether to ban bongs, needs to also be based on scientific data and the best available evidence. Currently, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that removing safe drug taking equipment from sale does not deter drug use at all. Instead, it just encourages users to make homemade equipment that when shared may spread HIV/AIDS/Hep C through cut or burnt lips. Homemade bongs may also produce poisonous chemicals from burning inappropriate materials and cause damage to the health of users. 

Trying to “Send a clear message that cannabis is harmful” by removing the sale of bongs is contradictory. Forcing users to make homemade bongs is already harmful. Removing bongs from sale is also counterproductive. Homemade bongs do not come with warnings or directions on how to get help. But including this information with any legal sale would target the very people you are trying to reach.  The legal availability of bongs does not determine whether someone users cannabis or normalises it’s use. There are many factors involved why people use cannabis but the legal sale of bongs is not one of them. Have you considered that like needle exchanges, a bong shop could give health workers direct access to users?  An elected official like you must do what’s best for the community and implement evidence based policies regardless of your own personal views or what you may think is popular. 

I implore you to ask for the views of those who deal with drug issues on a daily basis. The 2011 VAADA Conference is an ideal event to find out what the professionals think about banning bongs. If anyone has an insight into the issue it’s those attending the conference. They are experts who spend their lives researching and dealing with drugs. 

Awaiting your reply.

-- 
Regards

Terry Wright
The Australian Heroin Diaries


On April 13, 2011, a full three months later, I received a response.
NOTE: Her email contained a scan of a printed letter. I have retyped the contents.


Mr Terry Wright
The Australian Heroin Diaries
Dear Mr Wright

Thank you for your email dated 16 January 2011 regarding the Victorian Government's intention to ban the sale of cannabis smoking paraphernalia (bongs). 

The ban on the sale of bongs was a Coalition election promise made by the Premier, the Hon Ted Baillieu MP in January 2010. This amendment to the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act would see Victoria's legislation become comprehensive in banning all types of illicit drug paraphernalia, aligning with a ban on the sale of cocaine kits and ice pipes. 

Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug by young people in Victoria, and amongst regular cannabis users, bongs are the most common method for consumption. There is significant evidence on the risks of cannabis use to physical and mental health, particularly amongst those that commence cannabis use in their adolescence, and who use regularly. 

By banning the sale of bongs the Government is demonstrating their commitment to preventing uptake and reducing the harms caused by cannabis use. The Government will also provide improved community information and education about the ban and the harmful effects of cannabis.

Yours sincerely

Hon Mary Wooldridge MP
Minister for Mental Health

Mmmm. Doesn't really answer my questions.

The more I read her response, the more I am convinced that it is a cut and paste job from previous letters.

What are your thoughts?


2007 Election Letter
As I was writing this, I remembered about another reply I got years ago. It's a cracker!

Back in 2007 with only 10 days until the federal election, I wrote to the Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon MP. Assuming a Labor victory, I asked her if Labor was going to follow on with Howard's "Tough on Drugs" strategy and implement any of the recommendations from The Bishop Report: “The Winnable War on Drugs”?

Dear Nicola

What is the ALP policy on health & drug reform? I did not find any clear indication from the ALP website.

Is a new Labor Party government going to follow Howard’s outdated U.S. Lead ‘War on Drugs’ approach or is the Labor Party going to use health & science as their basis for treating drug addicts?

Is your party supporting ‘harm minimisation’ or supporting Bronwyn Bishop’s latest report findings. After Bronwyn Bishop’s report, I read so many negative opinions and nearly every health professional who commented on it, was scathing of the contempt The Prime Minister and Bronwyn Bishop had for harm minimisation.

All I ask is for Labor to follow the European lead and use science, heath and experts to determine this serious issue of drug addiction and not use fear or morals to enforce a law & order policy. It has not worked for 30 years now and in fact only drives up crime, repression and misery.


Terry Wright


What I received was classic Roxon and unadulterated election spin. But what stunned me most was that it was sent only two days short of election day. Read it if you dare.


Dear Terry

Labor strongly condemns illicit drug use and supports a “tough on drugs” approach as a means of protecting Australians from the terrible consequences of drug use and abuse. This is evidenced by a series of recent Labor policy announcements.

Labor has committed to a National Strategy to crack down on methamphetamines or “ice.” This included:
a ban on importing ice pipes and other drug paraphernalia; and
either further restrictions or a complete ban on sale of pseudoephedrine - a key ingredient of methamphetamine -  to minors;
work to restrict or ban the sale of pseudoephedrine over the internet; and
the extension of the special reference to the Australian Crime Commission to conduct a national investigation into the criminals engaged in the manufacture, sale and use of methamphetamine. 
Labor has also committed to boost Australian Federal Police numbers by 500 including tackling the importation of illicit drugs.

Labor supports the aim of helping those who use illicit drugs become drug free.  It must be recognised that illicit drug use and drug addiction in particular can be complex.   Despite the best efforts of families, Governments, health professionals and community groups such as churches, a small number of people still engage in drug taking behaviour. This is a tragedy that families across the social spectrum face.

How best to deal with those who are resistant to intervention is not an easy task but society should not give up on trying to engage them in treatments that will see them become drug free and minimise the harm they do to themselves and their families.  Labor believes that health professionals need to be able to use a range of prevention and intervention approaches and that these must be seen as part of a continuum that has freedom from drugs as an end goal.

Thank you for writing to Federal Labor about this important issue.

Yours sincerely
Nicola Roxon MP
Shadow Minister for Heatlh

Yes, it's real.


Related Articles

Tuesday 8 February 2011

The Deceitful World of Anti-Drug Zealots

Just how far will anti-drug and anti-harm minimisation pundits go to push their agenda? Read on as Paul Gallagher examines how some groups and individuals are bombarding us with flawed, cherry picked data as they attempt to influence drug policy.

The Deceitful World of Anti-Drug Zealots
A special report for The Australian Heroin Diaries
By Paul Gallagher

On February 2nd, an email appeared on the ADCA Update list from Jo Baxter, Executive Officer of the Australian branch of Drug Freedom, Drug Free Australia Inc. In line with the reality that Drug Free is Evidence Free, Jo had taken issue with Alex Wodak's insightful piece Agony over Ecstasy is helping no-one . It examined the arrest of Matthew Chesher, a suddenly erstwhile official in the NSW government and hubby to state minister Verity Firth, for purchasing an Ecstasy tablet.

Alex, Director of the Alcohol and Drug Service at St. Vincent's hospital Sydney, had returned from Lisbon, Portugal ten days prior and naturally included their now proven decriminalisation policy in his article. Jo wanted readers to get the real facts, and directed us, quite naturally one supposes, to Decriminalisation of Drugs in Portugal - The Real Facts!. Uh-oh, I cringed. An exclamation mark - the conspiracy theorists secret handshake - and "wfad" in the URL. 

What could it be? Decriminalisation causes autism? Portuguese stoners were behind 9/11? Not going to jail makes one more violent than video games? I braced myself and was rewarded with text book crap, ducking and weaving, thundering away at the evidence. The author was a moron, a crackpot even given his opinionated ramblings. He belonged on the World Forum Against Drugs site.

In recent and delightful forays into the twilight world of anti-vaccination conspiracies, I became acquainted with Scopie's Law. The anti-vaccination brigade are gullible in the extreme shirking reality - never mind evidence - in their quest to shift universal facts, including history, physics, geology, medicine, etc. Scopie's Law originated on the Bad Science forum thanks to Rich Scopie and states;

In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room.

It also includes "Answers in Genesis" to argue Creationism, or Educate-yourself.org. With respect to The World Forum Against Drugs, a strong case can be made to include it also. At least in our busy world, and given the importance of drug policy, it seems we find ourselves faced with the need for an equally efficient device. This is entirely due to time wasting to stem from balderdash published there solely to convey a negative view, couched in phoney "scientific" terms, of all manner of progressive policy initiatives. Not least, illicit drug decriminalisation in Portugal by Drug Free, prohibition worshipping, anti-drug proponents who also present archaic, brutal notions as rosy. 

The text of Decriminalisation of Drugs in Portugal - The Real Facts!, Manuel Pinto Coelho (Chairman of APLD - Association for a Drug Free Portugal and member of International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy) - Feb. 2010, was published in a slightly updated form in Replies to Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal, October 2010, BMJ. He really shouldn't have continued the farce. Because three months prior the 2008 figures on Portugal were published, leaving him scant, if any pickings indeed.

As usual without a cursory bibliography it is difficult to confirm or deny the context of such sweeping statements, particularly as they are presented without trend or comparison. Citing the European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007, a number of claims are made. A quick search for the "Observatory" yields only the same articles by Coelho, and indeed The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. The Observatory is mentioned in the Nov. 2003 Congressional Record USA, Vol 149, under "Intervention of the delegation of The Holy See", and a nice little reference to Pope John Paul II. Perhaps he meant the EMCDDA. Either way, it does him no good.

Some of his claims include;

In 2006, the total number of deaths as a consequence of overdose did not diminish radically compared to 2000, nor did the percentage of drug addicts with AIDS decrease significantly (from 57% to 43%). The opposite occurred. 

"The opposite occurred"? Page 48 of EMCDDA 2006 data, gives us some clarity on changing trends over time;

Data from the GMR (Selection B of the DRD Protocol) continue to indicate a decrease which started to take place from 1996 (114 cases) until 2005 (9 cases). The number of cases implies that breakdown data on them ceased to be available for statistics privacy reasons.

Although acute drug-related deaths are not yet possible to identify amongst the cases reported by the SMR, it has been possible to identify the percentage of suspected acute drug-related deaths. In 2006, 216 cases with positive post mortem toxicological tests were reported by the Special Register. A figure close to the one registered in 2005 (219) but an increase in comparison to previous years (156 on 2002, 152 in 2003 and 156 in 2004). 52% of the cases with positive toxicological tests and information on the presumed aetiology of death were suspected to be acute drug-related deaths. This percentage, which decreased between 2000 and 2003, increased in 2004 to 51% and again in 2005 to 58%, in comparison to previous years (44% in 2003, 58% in 2002, 73% in 2001 and 72% in 2000) and decrease again in 2006.

Regarding HIV/AIDS page 52 offers;

Taking only 2006 notified cases, 37% of the AIDS cases, 28% of the AIDS related complex cases and 19% of the asymptomatic carriers cases were drug use associated.
This agains reinforces the decreasing trend, verified since 1998, in the absolute numbers and percentage of drug users in the overall number of diagnosed AIDS cases, as seen in the graph below, despite the fact that, in 2005, the infection by HIV was included in the national list of diseases which implies mandatory notification.

EMCDDA 2006 DATA, p. 52


Further reading of that page offers more clarity. The 2007 data report reads very closely. 
Coelho continues; 

Portugal faces a worrying deterioration of the drug situation. The facts prove "With 219 deaths from 'overdose' per year, Portugal has one of the worst results, with one death every two days. Along with Greece, Austria and Finland, Portugal registered an increase of deaths by more than 30% in 2005 " and " Portugal remains the country with the highest increase of AIDS as a result of injecting drugs (85 new cases per million residents in 2005, when the majority of countries do not surpass 5 cases per million).  Portugal is the only country that recorded a recent increase, with 36 new cases estimated per million in 2005 when in 2004 only 30 were registered" (European Observatory for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2007). The European report also confirmed that in 2006, Portugal had registered 703 new cases of SIDA, which corresponds to a rate eight times higher than the European average!

It's a bit like screaming at surgeons in Causality as they begin to operate on a loved one bleeding to death from multiple injuries. "His B.P. is lower than when he arrived, he lost consciousness not long after you touched him! Of the 27 people in here he's one of the worst! This is a hospital and he's not getting better - why isn't he better? There's blood everywhere and I now have proof of bone fractures and swelling on the brain - which I didn't have before I came here!"

What's truly devious about the tactics used by anti-drug campaigners is the cherry picking of data. Despite having read, and quoted in the same article, the World Drug Report 2009 our friend Manuel will ignore it when it suits him. Extraordinary claims require the evidence to back them and that means a link or a citation backed by a bibliography. Another trick used to pass Portugal off as a nation of drug induced tragedy and woe, is Coelho's use of "Western European" figures or "France, Ireland, Spain, The United Kingdom, Italy, Denmark and Portugal". He omits to share with us, for example in the case of opiates, that of nine indices Portugal has lower usage per capita than Switzerland and on UK population figures, Portuguese addicts would equal approximately 260,000 - not the UK's own 440,000. Statistically opiate use is still lower than Italy, whilst higher than Germany, France, Spain and The Netherlands.




WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009 - PAGE 55.


Whilst 219 deaths from overdoses and a 2005 increase of 30%, "along with Greece, Austria and Finland" is eye catching, Coelho's "real facts" are quite welcome if we note annual OD's were ~ 400 before decriminalisation and "HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank." 


Coelho dispatches Cato and others smartly in his opening, ominously painting himself into a corner. He writes;

Recent articles in the weekly British magazine, The Economist and The Cato Institute of Washington promote government options as a legitimate right. The problem is the rest; the manipulation of the facts and numbers is unacceptable!

Remember that - "manipulation of the facts and numbers...". More so, the very recent slight increase in negative outcomes is not contested by policy analysts nor a viable proof of legalisation's social malignancy, as seemingly claimed. The Boston Globe reported last month, citing research by Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens;

In fact, drug-related deaths in Portugal — after falling between 1999 and 2002 — jumped considerably between 2005 and 2008. 

But the drug-related death data is misleading, most likely due to a “shift in measurement practices,” and an increase in the number of toxicological autopsies performed, according to Hughes’s and Stevens’s research. And Hughes also takes issue with Humphreys’s argument that drug use, in general, is increasing at a dramatic clip.

What’s most relevant, she [Hughes] said, is not the percentage of people reporting using drugs at some point over some course of their lifetime, but the percentage of people reporting using drugs in the past year. “That’s going to be affecting the government and communities now,” she said. And here, the increase of Portuguese reporting illicit drug use is much smaller — up from 3.4 percent in 2001 to 3.7 in 2007."

The percentage of people reporting drug use in the past year... going to be affecting government and communities. 

Wise words from Hughes. When we look at “ever used”, “lifetime use” and recent use, vastly different conclusions can be drawn. If drug use is falling over a short time frame or in response to new initiatives, the drop can be lost if “ever used” figures are quoted. This includes, say, one time experimenters and new/long term sober ex-users responding to treatment, giving a skewed view of ever increasing drug use. 

Audaciously, Coelho scurrilously quotes the same IDC 2008 data as that used by Hughes and Stevens who arrive at almost polar conclusions, to state the mundane. "On the contrary, the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007". Which, in the context of pre-legalisation uptake and the now much reduced harm, increased treatment, reduced crime and deaths is nothing short of petulant and laughable.

More so, if one searches for these key words hoping to find the IDT making much of the equation, 12% - 7.8% = 4.2% one finds Coelho lurking in almost every corner of the internet that Portugal's success is reported. As noted he repeated his piece in Rapid Responses to Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal, BMJ - Oct. 2010. It's repeated in a comment to a BBC article here September 2010. The same day as he published it at WFAD it appears on Brazilian Humanitarians in Action. Comments at Wired In To Recovery January 12th, 2011 see "PeaPod" copy/paste the same text. In fact, everywhere one sees that 4.2% pop up it is attributed to Manic Manuel. Golf clap, dear reader, golf clap.

In The British Journal of Criminology, What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalisation Of Illicit Drugs?, Hughes and Stevens consult the IDT data extensively. Strangely, 4.2% is entirely absent in this voluminous text. It is here we can see why Coelho makes liberal use of combining Portugal with Spain and other nations. Consider Fig's 2 & 3 - number of offender arrests.

Their final conclusion continues the unraveling of Coelho...

In the Portuguese case, the statistical indicators and key informant interviews that we have reviewed suggest that since decriminalization in July 2001, the following changes have occurred:

small increases in reported illicit drug use amongst adults;

reduced illicit drug use among problematic drug users and adolescents, at least since 2003;

reduced burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system;

increased uptake of drug treatment;

reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases;

increases in the amounts of drugs seized by the authorities;

reductions in the retail prices of drugs.

Perhaps the most damning abuse of evidence at Coelho's hands is that of the World Drug Report 2009. He quotes it in his article and thus, has clearly read it. From misrepresentation to fabrication, every "reference" made can be qualified differently. For a chap popping lofty titles after his name and leading the charge for a "Drug Free" Portugal it's incomprehensible that he's unaware of the INCB's 2004 mission to Portugal, and their conclusion that possession remained prohibited. 

Initially he refers to decriminalisation as "in prejudice of the guidelines of the UN Conventions of which Portugal is a signatory." According to the WDR 2009, that our friend Manuel has read, the INCB conclude Portugal's legislation is within Convention Parameters.

On page 168 we read;

Those in possession of a small amount of drugs for personal use are issued with a summons rather than arrested. The drugs are confiscated and the suspect must appear before a commission. The suspect’s drug consumption patterns are reviewed, and users may be fined, diverted to treatment, or subjected to probation. Cases of drug trafficking continue to be prosecuted, and the number of drug trafficking offences detected in Portugal is close to the European average.

Page 183;

The International Narcotics Control Board was initially apprehensive when Portugal changed its law in 2001 (see their annual report for that year), but after a mission to Portugal in 2004, it “noted that the acquisition, possession and abuse of drugs had remained prohibited,” and said “the practice of exempting small quantities of drugs from criminal prosecution is consistent with the international drug control treaties...


The intentional deception goes on. Coelho writes in a masterpiece of Special Pleading;

With regard to hashish, it is difficult  to assess the trends and intensive use of hashish in Europe, but among the countries that participated in field trials, between 2004 and 2007 (France, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands and Portugal) there was an average increase of approximately 20% " (EMCDDA, 2008).

20%! Really? Remember, his article is called "Decriminalisation Of Drugs In Portugal - The Real Facts". What if we isolate Portugal from page 111 of the 2009 WDR. In 2001 Portugal's annual prevalence of cannabis use was 3.3%. Five years later in 2006 it was 3.6%. Italy had more than double from 6.2 to 14.6% up to 2007. But the juiciest bit on page 110 is that DRUG FREE Sweden increased cannabis use by almost 300% rising from 0.7% in 2000, to 2.2% in 2004 to 2.0% in 2006. So, by 2006, Sweden's Drug Free Zero Tolerance led to a three fold increase vs Portugal's 9.0% increase. 

And how convenient to include Spain in misrepresenting illicit drug trends in Portugal. Spain tops the world for cannabis resin seizures grinning away at 50% or 653,631 kg for 2007. Portugal manages 3% - or 42,772 kg. So, Manuel almost certainly knows it's not "difficult to assess" at all. Coelho is cherry picking his data to convey his outmoded ideology as statistically valid. 

However, Manuel has referenced the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction - EMCDDA 2008. It would indeed be most remiss of me to not fan the smoke and remove the mirrors here also. The site itself is a triumph of illicit drug research collation for Europe. A search for "Portugal, 2008" pulls up 300 items. This is where Coelho's lack of citation, a favourite trick of prohibitionists, gives him the inside lane again. The EMCDDA publishes 2007 Portugal data in 2008. 2008 Portugal data in 2009. Hence "EMCDDA, 2008" is a nonsense reference not worthy of a high school essay. Referring to psychoactive substance EMCDDA 2007 data states (page 17); 

Results from the II National Population Survey on Psychoactive Substances in the Portuguese Population (15-64 years) indicate that cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy are the substances preferely used by Portuguese, with lifetime prevalences respectively of 11,7%, 1,9% and 1,3%. Between 2001 and 2007, despite the increase of lifetime prevalence in several illicit substances, a generalised decrease was verified in the continuation rates use.

You can read the breakdown of populations into sex, age, military, etc for yourself. Lifetime prevalence for cannabis for 3rd cycle students in 2001 was 10%, in 2007 6.3%. High school students showed 26% in 2001 and 19% in 2007. For total population use over the last 12 months is the same in 2001 and 2007 - 2.4%. 15 - 34 years indicate 4.4% in 2001 and 4.7% in 2007. These figures really aren't cause for carry on in either direction. They certainly don't support Coelho's claim of a 20% increase as part of policy failure. 

But what perhaps exposes our Chairman of the Association for a Drug Free Portugal for the reckless fool he is, must be his obsession with prohibition. Right up to the point of ignoring the growth in Drug Free communities and referrals laid out on page 46 of the same document he uses in his failure to statistically condemn Portugal. As in Australia the Drug Free mob seem to be lonely fringe dwelling outcasts, unable to reciprocate outside their peculiar conservative beliefs.

Inpatient drug free treatment is mainly available in public and private15 therapeutic communities. In 2007 there were 76 therapeutic communities (3 public and 73 private units) in mainland Portugal. In comparison to 2006 there was 3 more private therapeutic communities. Contrarily to the decreasing figure that has been registered since 2002, in 2007 the number of registered clients in both public (134 clients, 110 in 2006) and private units (4 423 clients, 4 118 in 2006) increased in comparison to previous years.

As the Chairman of a national organisation Coelho has had ample time to retract and/or correct his piece/s. He hasn't and ignores further data to the contrary. The 2009 National Report on Portugal (2008 data) to the EMCDDA gives a swift rebuttal to Coelho's trick of submerging Portugal in a string of nations. It is heavy on IDT data - the source of Coelho's primary claim of increasing drug use - which we shall consult and clarify. However the IDT website offers the following measured view; 

Drugs in Portugal - situation and responses
In the context of Drugs and Drug Addiction, the year 2006 was distinguished by the effort developed by all Bodies and Entities with intervention in this area, in order to find effective coordination forms, with a clear definition of the priorities and responsibilities of each intervenient.

Following the assessment of the Portuguese Drug Strategy 1999, the year in which the strategic goals were redefined and included in the National Action Plan Horizon 2012 and was outlined the Action Plan mid-term (Horizon 2008), with the actions’ schedule, clear assumption of the responsibilities in the carrying out and definition of measurable indicators in order to be monitored

Drug use
Cannabis continues to be the most used drug and its visibility in several indicators continues to increase, alone or in combination with other substances.

Nevertheless, heroin remains as the main drug involved in health drug use related consequences and in some of the legal drug use related consequences.

The presence of cocaine is increasingly being mentioned in several indicators, namely concerning the recreational, treatment and market settings.
          
Lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use (Balsa 2001)
2006 school survey data seems to indicate a decrease in drug use prevalence amongst the pupils of the 6th, 8th and 10th grades (aged 12 to 19). However this is based on preliminary data only and more in-depth analyses will be needed to confirm this apparent decrease.

Responses to drug use were re-organised at national level, following the 2004 evaluation and the 2005 drafting of new National Plan.

Emphasis will be placed in local needs assessment and the provision of integrated responses, in accordance with the identified needs. Integrated responses will have the possibility of including the areas of prevention, harm reduction, treatment and rehabilitation.

The news ticker on the site happens to only offer The Success of Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal.

But on to the EMCDDA 2008 Report. Page 5 offers;

Results from national estimations on problematic drug use in Portugal indicate that there are between 6.2 and 7.4 problematic drug users for each 1 000 inhabitants aged 15-64 years, and between 1.5 and 3.0 for the definition of problematic drug users (injecting drug users). Between 2000 and 2005, the estimate number of problematic drug users in Portugal has shown a clear decline, with special relevance for injecting drug users… 

...Indicators available continue to suggest effective responses at treatment level (increase in the number of clients involved in both drug free and substitution programmes) and at harm reduction level. The number of active clients in the outpatient public treatment network increased as well as first treatment demands (for the second time since 2000 changed the decrease trend). Heroin continues to be the main substance associated to health consequences and specifically in the sub-population of drug users that seek access to different treatment structures, but references to cocaine, cannabis and alcohol in this setting are increasing.

The availability of substitution programmes continues to increase and the number of clients continues to increase steadily (increases were registered in the number of clients in methadone and buprenorphine programmes).

Page 6 does indeed show a negative trend in General Mortality in 2008 - up 6 from 14 to 20 which Coelho misses. However, Coelho's claims of increasing use and HIV are seen to be false along with a welcome drop in HCV rates.

The decreasing trend in the percentage of drug users in the total number of notifications of HIV/AIDS cases continues to be registered. Concerning HIV infection in the treatment setting, the percentages of HIV positive cases (prelavences) varied between 9% and 25%, showing a tendency for decrease in last years.

Hepatitis B positive cases (prevalences) remained stable in comparison to previous years and Hepatitis C registered the smaller values of the last four years.

This decrease may be related, amongst other factors, to the implementation of harm reduction measures, which may be leading to a decrease in intravenous drug use (also visible in data concerning administration route in first treatment demands), or to intravenous drug use in better sanitary conditions, as indicated by the number of exchanged syringes in the National Programme “Say no to a second hand syringe”.

...In 2008, a increase was registered on drug-related mortality in the General Mortality Register in comparison to 2007 (20 in 2008 and 14 in 2007)...

...In Portugal, treatment for HIV, AIDS and Hepatitis B and C is included in the National Health Service and therefore available and free for those who need it.

In 2008, it is worth noting the enlargement of the socio sanitary structures and responses to drug users, the definition and implementation of technical guidelines in order to improve the quality of intervention and procedures that are more efficient, as well as the participation in working groups to define responses to populations with specific needs.

In the prison setting, inmates and staff are routinely vaccinated against Hepatitis B.

Remember the ubiquitous Coelho paragraph, polluting our search results?

The decriminalization of drugs in Portugal did not in any way decrease levels of consumption. On the contrary, "the consumption of drugs in Portugal increased by 4.2% - the percentage of people who have experimented with drugs at least once in their lifetime increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 12% in 2007 (IDT-Institute for Drugs and Drug Addiction Portuguese, 2008).

On the contrary? On the contrary, Manuel, that's remarkably ignorant. Did you correct for that ubiquitous inflator of "drug use" figures - the one off or infrequent cannabis user? Perhaps not. What does the IDT data show within EMCDDA 2008, seeing as you're booming about it?  From Page 19;

There are no significant differences between 2001 and 2007 results; there was a slight increase of cocaine and heroin use at least once in lifetime by females and a decrease in all the other substances.


Clearly, cannabis is the dominating drug. And we can see the relevance of Caitlan Hughes stating that, "... percentage of people reporting drug use in the past year", is of significance. With no change over the past 30 days in six years and an insignificant change over 12 months, this reflects more experimentation and infrequent use - not lumbering stoners. 

Some of Manuel's best distortions however, are in carving up his cocaine lines. Pun intended.

Coelho correctly informs us that drug related murders increased 40%. The report notes elsewhere Portugal's position as a transit nation. "It was the only European country with a significant increase in (drug-related) murders between 2001 and 2006", he warns citing the WDR 2009. So, let's check that very report on page 168 to note;

While cocaine seizures in a number of European countries increased sharply during that period, in 2006, Portugal suddenly had the sixth-highest cocaine seizure total in the world. The number of murders increased 40% during this same period of time, a fact that might be related to the trafficking activity. Although the rate remains low and Lisbon is one of Europe’s safest cities, Portugal was the only European country to show a significant increase in murder during this period.

This rapid increase in trafficking was probably related to the use of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde, former colonies, as transit countries. Most of the traffickers arrested in Portugal in 2007 were of West African origin. As international awareness of the problem increased, cocaine seizures fell in a number of European countries, but France and Portugal, two countries with former colonies in the region, showed the most pronounced decreases.

So this is down to non-nationals taking advantage of Portugal's geographic location - and at times getting murdered as a result. Certainly not what Coelho would have us believe. Scare stories about "drug tourism" are without foundation also. 

But let's examine that last sentence - "pronounced decreases";


WORLD DRUG REPORT 2009 - PAGE 72

Again, I can only think of the moron in the man who thought he could quote this report and expect to get away with misrepresenting it. 

On page 168 of the WDR 2009 we read;

...the number of drug trafficking offences detected in Portugal is close to the European average.

These conditions keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users. Among those who would not welcome a summons from a police officer are tourists, and, as a result, Portugal’s policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism. It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased.

Cocaine use for Portugal was 0.3% in 2001 and 0.6% in 2006 - a doubling in 5 years. Seizures over a similar time frame are 5,574 kg in 2001, 3,021 kg in 2003, 18,083 kg in 2005, 34,477 kg in 2006 and 7,363 kg in 2007. If seizures reflected usage they would be around 11,000 kg in 2006 to accommodate the doubling of use. As they reflect transit we see over 34,000 kg.

And on it goes. Page after page in publication after publication supporting Portugal's decriminalisation, refuting critics and most importantly damning the misleading and damaging pseudoscientific twaddle of one Manuel Pinto Coelho. Published in February 2010 Coelho's piece purposely shirks more recent data conveying an entirely different trend. His deception is confirmed by republishing again and again after the World Drug Report 2009 became available in July 2010, refuting his intellectual rampage most thoroughly. Seizing on poor data sets and extreme examples out of context, he’d do climate change denialists proud. Cocaine, cannabis, heroin, stimulants, hashish, murder, HIV and even one of those spooky opinion polls recording “attitudes” of the Portuguese that as we well know, are not science. 

At the last, he tries to pass off an esoteric analysis in which Portugal allows criminal activity to be conducted by “the sick” such that “Pretend you are sick and the government pretends to treat you”. Addicts are now seen as patients, not “delinquents” he bemoans pathetically, who are “assumed” free and responsible. The state is feeding the “disease”.

What is worse however, is that this nonsense is swallowed in it's entirety by Drug Free Australia who then spread it into the community as, no doubt, "the real facts". 

And in doing so, they continue to contribute to ignorance, crime, drug related harm, reduction in treatment income, discrimination, family breakdown, incarceration and the building of more prisons, blood borne viruses - which affect us all - wasted funding dollars and the sequestering of same away from worthwhile community projects.

Some topics are too serious for stupidity and contrariness. There comes a time when despite the media's desire for "balance" and the government's view to allow airing of all views, we must decide if any "debate" still exists. The simple fact is, Jo Baxter and cohorts within Drug Free Australia - despite analogues around the world - cause far too much damage to allow them the quaint belief they might be correct.

I wish they weren't here.


Related Articles


Sunday 7 November 2010

All Drugs Are Not The Same

People love drugs … this is a fact.  And many people will use drugs. Another fact.

Some will overdose, some will get sick and some will want to go home, But the vast majority will get what they paid for … a hellava’ good time. Yeah, yeah, I hear you - drugs are bad, drugs can hurt you - but so can anal sex but that act is performed at least a million times a year without a lot of complaints. 

Funny enough, the same people who complain about others having anal sex also complain about drugs.  You know the type I mean. Arrogant, conservative, self-righteous, self-important, self-appointed guardians of all things moral. They use jargon like “family values”, “personal responsibility”, “do the crime … do the time” or remind us that things were different in 1956. They were once called wowsers. 

Wowser
[noun] Austral./NZ informal - a person who is publicly critical of others and the pleasures they seek; a killjoy

One common mistake made by wowsers / the media / the government / anti-drug zealots / the police / moral crusaders etc. is lumping all drugs together under the one umbrella. You often hear the police blame someone’s actions on being “under the influence of drugs” or the media describe erratic behaviour due to drugs. On Channel 7’s, The Force - Behind the Line, I heard one police officer describe a suspect as showing typical signs of drug use - hyperactive, extremely restless, nervous and pinpoint pupils. What drug causes that? The victim was caught with speed which explains most of the symptoms except pinpoint pupils are typical of heroin use not speed. Amphetamines(speed) make your pupils bigger, not smaller. This is a classic example of how all drugs are lumped into one category. 

But, all drugs are not the same. Some people perceive them to be like different kinds of liquor. e.g. whisky, beer, wine, cognac. They all look and taste differently but the effect is the same … you get stoned. Drugs though, offer a rich variety of effects, some of which can be compared to activities in the physical world. Jumping out of an aeroplane might thrill the adrenaline junkies but it doesn’t even come close to what first hooked a heroin addict. Being as cool as James Bond involves years of practice, exercise and training but why bother when a line of coke can give you same confidence? What about sex? Option one - Seven years in India learning the Karma Sutra, four years of attending the gym followed by two years of studying Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts or even A Couple’s Guide to Automobile Repairs. Option two - an ecstasy pill.

Another common misrepresentation is that unhappy people turn to drugs to dampen their emotional pain. That’s like saying all drinkers “hit the booze” to “drown their sorrows”. Of course, most drinkers indulge in alcohol because it’s enjoyable and it’s no different with drugs. And which “drugs” do they turn to? I find it hard to imagine that someone with a great burden on their shoulders will turn to ecstasy to block out the world. Or someone with suicidal tendencies overdosing themselves on pot in a half hearted attempt to end it all. I turned to heroin after the death of my wife when booze wasn’t killing me quickly enough or dampening the unbearable sorrow I was feeling. Before then, I had only used drugs like speed to enhance my night out or to experience the trippy pleasures of mushrooms, LSD and dope. The point is, I turned to a particular drug like heroin, not ice, weed or cocaine. Who knows what might have happened if I took up LSD instead of heroin?

What attracts people to different types of drugs? My experience is that people want certain drugs for different reasons. Alcohol is for socialising, dope is for chilling out, speed/ice/cocaine for partying, LSD/mushrooms for experimenting and heroin for multiple reasons. But according to many sources like the media, it’s irrelevant because … drugs are bad, mmkay!

This blanket approach to drugs has been enforced around the globe for the last 100 years. Now when any new drug appears on the market, it gets slotted under the “drugs” umbrella without any scientific examination or analysis of it’s social effect. Ecstasy(MDMA) is a classic example of how an over zealous organisation like the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) ignored all input from medical / scientific groups and pushed for a schedule I drug classification. This was despite a court ruling that it should not be banned, advice from medical experts and the successful trials that showed it to be a possible treatment for PTSD, depression and other disorders. The DEA used it’s special authority granted by the government to override the court’s decision, ignore scientific advice and make it’s own judgement. MDMA was banned and classed as a schedule I drug.

US 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

Many countries including Australia now just mimic any scheduling decisions made by the US and the UK. Not surprisingly, the only exception is when they lower the classification of a drug. It would have been interesting to see what happened if Proposition 19 in California was passed and cannabis became legal. If the example of how Australia managed the classification of UK legal highs or MDMA is any thing to go by, then we are doomed to retain only stricter scheduling of drugs but ignore any changes that reflect a loosening of restrictions.

But it’s not just government classifications that get the blanket treatment. The scheduling of drugs is also driven by how society views these substances. And this is where the sensationalist media and political rhetoric comes into action. These potent forces have been pumping disinformation into us for decades and now much of the public believes their spin. And why wouldn’t they? Just mention heroin or crack and watch instantly as normal, rational human beings turn into judgemental, irrational zealots. Try pointing out the facts and watch as disbelief overrides all evidence and reality. Listen up to the amazing array of myths that will used to attack your “extremist” views. Why is it is so damned hard to expose decades of propaganda from the government, anti-drug nutters and the media.

Just recently, Professor David Nutt was sacked from the the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), who are a group of scientists, academics and doctors commissioned by the UK government to advise on drug policy. His crime was telling the truth. Prof. Nutt was simply providing evidence that some drugs like cannabis, LSD, mushrroms and ecstasy(MDMA) are much safer, and that alcohol is far more dangerous, than the official government position or the public’s perception. The UK Home Secretary decided that maintaining flawed information about drug harms was more important than the facts so he sacked Prof. Nutt claiming he was out-of-line for criticising government policy. Can you imagine any other scientific issue that would prompt a government to dismiss the evidence and remain fooling the public with flawed information? 

Professor David Nutt has since created his own group called, the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. Last week, they published a scientific paper in the respected Lancet medical journal that measured the rates of harm from illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco. The results showed that alcohol is the most dangerous drug in the UK, overshadowing heroin and cocaine. At the other end of the scale, mushrooms, ecstasy and LSD were well down the list. As expected, the report has caused a frenzy of newspaper articles. 

Background
Proper assessment of the harms caused by the misuse of drugs can inform policy makers in health, policing, and social care. We aimed to apply multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modelling to a range of drug harms in the UK.

Methods
Members of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs, including two invited specialists, met in a 1-day interactive workshop to score 20 drugs on 16 criteria: nine related to the harms that a drug produces in the individual and seven to the harms to others. Drugs were scored out of 100 points, and the criteria were weighted to indicate their relative importance.

Findings
MCDA modelling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and metamfetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places.

Interpretation
These findings lend support to previous work assessing drug harms, and show how the improved scoring and weighting approach of MCDA increases the differentiation between the most and least harmful drugs. However, the findings correlate poorly with present UK drug classification, which is not based simply on considerations of harm.

Funding
Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (UK).



What this report doesn’t cover though, is how these drugs would rate in a world without prohibition. By far, most problems from drug use is attributed to our drug laws. It’s the illegality of these substances that causes more damage than the drugs themselves. Heroin, for example is basically non toxic and can taken for decades without much physical damage. Cocaine, speed and GHB taken occasionally will not greatly impact on your health unless of course, it’s cut with drain cleaner. Smoking naturally grown cannabis in moderation will not usually hurt any adult who doesn’t have a history of mental health disorders. Popping an ecstasy pill (pure MDMA) every few months is not going send most people to rehab. Although moderation is the best defence against the potential, nasty side effects of illicit drug use, prohibition is the real culprit. Prohibition removes all the safe guards that could be included with regulated sales of these drugs. Prohibition puts the safety of drug users in the hands of criminals and dealers who offer no quality control or age restrictions. Even that junkie stereotype is purely a result of drugs being illegal. It’s not the drugs that make junkies look skinny, dirty and homeless - it’s the desperation from dodging police, being maligned by the public and that never ending search for money that leaves very little for rent, food etc.

For many, their deep-seated views on drugs are not going to change anytime soon. Most of the population has never experienced a world without drug prohibition and after a lifetime of misinformation and the constant drone of anti-drug sentiment, the demonising of drugs has been very effective. Separating substances into groups based on their harm might go a long way to educating the public and hopefully provide some sanity in the drug debate. We don’t want a repeat performance of Liberal hack, Chris Pyne dribbling on about pot and heroin being equally as dangerous. These theatrical performances might appease dorks like Pyne but they do nothing to keep people safe. Nor does the popular trend of outing one’s self as having tried pot at university but declaring it’s now unsafe to do so because of the latest research. Over the last few years, we have had Australia’s top politicians admitting to smoking the evil weed but warning others not to follow suit. Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Wayne Swann and Malcolm Turnbull have all made this admission but it took the current US president to actually come clean. When asked if he “inhaled” - a reference to former US president who said he tried pot but didn’t inhale - Obama said, “that’s the point, isn’t it”.

We have to end the “drugs are bad … mmkay” mentality. All drugs have specific harms when abused but some, more than others. Inexperienced people shooting up hard drugs is not a good idea but overall, binge drinking causes more harm than intravenous drug use. Dozens of night-clubbers taking ecstasy in it’s pure form will not cause anywhere near the carnage inflicted by boozers in the same venue. Smoking pot each night for years on end will only produce a tiny group of dependant users compared to drinkers who consume similar amounts to achieve the same intoxication. And contrary to popular beliefs, methamphetamines like ice cause a fraction of the violence that alcohol bestows on the community each week. 

These facts need to be explained to the public along with the truth about legal drugs like alcohol, tobacco and prescription medication. Although it’s changing slowly, all illicit drugs are still seen as something that only desperate, low life druggies will consider while incredibly, booze is considered a safe alternative. The facts are out there but if our leaders and the media are not prepared to tell us the truth then the public will remain victims of deceit and agenda driven policy. We deserve better.