Drug Madness Costs Decades of Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Why is Marijuana Illegal? - Drug War Rant

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

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

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

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




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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then the crunch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Articles:

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

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. 

Survey: Heroin Trials in Australia

Survey

If a heroin trial comes up for debate in parliament again, I want to know who supports it before the pressure to conform is applied. Remember The Federal Health Minister, Michael Wooldridge. In 1997, he was a big supporter before Howard got to him and suddenly he was against it. 

I am sending emails to politicians, doctors, media and other people who may have influence. At last count, 45% of the population supported a heroin trial. The 1997 trials were supported by The AMA, The Federal Health Minister,The Commonwealth Government, NSW, Vic, SA, Tas and the ACT and they voted for the trials to go ahead. It was John Howard himself who rejected the trials.

The feedback is going to be very interesting as many countries have now concluded their trials. Every trial has proved that prescription heroin is far superior as a treatment for long term heroin addiction than the current treatments available.

The survey is a permanent link on the right side of this blog.

The Scourge of Conservatism

No Dole for Drug Addicts!.

This was the headline that stopped me dead cold in my tracks. The 2007 Australian election is getting desperate for neo-con Howard and his Liberal Party. God that name is deceptive, Liberal Party ... the most non-liberal bunch of rabble I have encountered in Australian politics. Anyway, as usual during an election, Howard always plays the "bigot" card. It usually is a race issue to attract the many rednecks and racist right wing whackos e.g. children overboard, immigration, detention centres etc. They tried it again with the Mohamed Haneef case and since that backfired the "Tough on Drugs" issue was raised. The coalition's drug policy was pushed to new heights with an announcement that people convicted of drug offences would have their welfare payments handled by the Government. This means food stamps instead of cash, interdiction of purchasing smokes and alcohol etc. I was stunned to say the least and so were many welfare agencies. Even the AMA denounced it but it was too late because the message had got out. I read many comments from readers from various newspapers and although there were not as many pro-hate comments as previous elections, there were enough to keep me reminded of the millions of Australians who believe in Howard's Australia. No one with any common sense would think this could work. Many readers comments stated the obvious with comments like "now there will be a black market in food stamps" or "these addicts will just go into business of burglary or drug dealing to pay for their habit ... who said the Government doesn't support small business". I guessed there was about 80% against the policy and about 20% for it. How low will this dickhead go? He makes my skin crawl. I have been fairly relaxed during this diary but this has made me so mad. So for the record, I am just going to say it:

John Howard is a Brain Dead Freak.

He is an evil, narcissistic, lying, senile, flatulent, brain dead freak.

I hate this spaz so much it's embarrassing. This so called man who stopped the heroin trials because of his personal morals against the advice of numerous drug committees has forced me into the world of methadonia. I am a prime candidate for the heroin prescription plan that is part of some countries health plans ... and soon to be part of many countries health plans. Each day I wake up with pain and depression. I take my methadone and about an hour later I start to feel better. This lasts for about 2 hours and then I am flat out trying to feel normal again. This normal can mostly be achieved via a great medication called heroin. Why do medical experts, welfare workers and scientists understand this but not certain people especially politicians? I will tell you why - CONSERVATISM.

CONSERVATISM. The term itself is repressive. The opposite to progressive. Did society get here today by being conservative? No. It actually was the factor that stopped women voting, minority groups voting, Gay rights getting acknowledged, climate control etc. Howard is pushing the agenda that he and his merrymen are economic conservatives. Rudd also attributes himself as an economic conservative. WTF? This is not good, this is bad. This means budget surpluses which is an oxymoron anyway because a budget is suppose to balance. Surpluses just means that the Government is not spending our tax we pay on services. If Australia had perfect hospitals, schools etc. then a surplus would be good but this irresponsible Government just wanted to have a surplus to boast economic conservatism.

Paul Keating came out and hammered Costello for being the “laziest, most indolent, unimaginative treasurer in our post-war history”. I actually had time for Costello once but Keating is God when it comes to economics and it made me think. Keating went on to say how it was actually the unions that started the low inflation trend that Howard attributes to the Libs great handling of the economy via economic conservatism. Keating produced some notes from May 1995 that showed it was the ACTU secretary Bill Kelty who suggested a limit on inflation of just 3 per cent, which was taken up by the Reserve Bank chief Bernie Fraser. This again proves Howard is a liar and indicates that Costello is not what he is cracked up to be. If lying, surpluses or doing nothing is the fundamentals of conservative economics then Rudd, the self appointed me-too economic conservative will probably not be much better.

FYI: A Neoconservative (Neocon) is someone who follows the political view that was made popular by Leo Strauss, an American Political Science Professor from the University of Chicago. Strauss had a dedicated group of students and followers including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. The neoconservative ideologies were strengthened in the U.S. by George Bush Snr., Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney during the presidency of Gerald Ford and were responsible for the first neocon president, Ronald Reagan. The pinnacle of the neocon agenda is with the current Bush adminstration and has had many neo-cons including G.W. Bush, Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. The basic philosophy is that the U.S. should be seen as the setter of moral standards worldwide and it should enforce it's democracy on other countries. The people should not question their government and should be more concerned with nationalism via patriotism and morals via christianity. Liberal views deflate social morality and individualism only distract from nations goals. Neocons who follow the Strauss ideal is best summed up in this paper by Shadia B. Drury:

The trouble with the Straussians is that they are compulsive liars. But it is not altogether their fault. Strauss was very pre-occupied with secrecy because he was convinced that the truth is too harsh for any society to bear; and that the truth-bearers are likely to be persecuted by society - specially a liberal society - because liberal democracy is about as far as one can get from the truth as Strauss understood it

.

Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives

John Howard is a neocon in that he supports the Bush administration's agenda. He shares many ideals with G.W. Bush and blindly supports the U.S. e.g. The War on Terror, The War on Drugs, Israel occupation and human rights abuse, anti-abortion, pro christian moral propaganda, religious rhetoric, forced U.S. style democracy via military intervention, executive power overriding courts and constitutions, extreme secrecy, loss of civil rights, tax cuts for the wealthy etc.

Neoconservatism