Miranda Devine on Drugs Again

I always wondered why Miranda Devine was employed at the Sydney Morning Herald. She seems far more suited to a crap newspaper like The Daily Telegraph or some other News Ltd rag. And now it’s happened … Miranda the Devine has become a permanent opinion writer for The Daily Telegraph with her own blog.

Miranda Devine is a hard-hitting journalist who writes for Sydney’s Daily Telegraph

--The Daily Telegraph

What a lineup. Tim Blair, Piers Akerman and Miranda the Devine all gracing the pages of Australia’s worst newspaper.

She is the latest addition to our powerful stable of opinion writers who set the local and national agenda

--Garry Linnell: Daily Telegraph Editor 

To kick off her new job, Miranda felt it was a good idea to drag out her favourite subject … drugs. Who would of thought? And I must admit, it’s just as bad as her usual rants, showing how little she really knows about the subject. MD is notorious for seemingly just making stuff up about drugs and has even attempted to take on respected doctors with decades of experience. It can be really embarrassing.

In her “hard hitting” article, MD complains that MSIC has, “done nothing demonstrable to reduce heroin use, or cause drug addicts to abstain from the substance that is ruining their lives”. Not surprisingly, she omits the successes and actual objectives of MSIC like it has saved thousands of overdoses, cleaned up Kings Cross and reduced ambulance callouts. MSIC was never meant to reduce heroin use or cause addicts to abstain. MSIC adds to the current strategies and targets a certain group of users in a special situation. It is not meant to replace treatment or replace other programs. If we follow MD’s logic, Ventolin inhalers don’t cure asthma so they are ineffective and should be scrapped or seat belts don’t stop drink-driving deaths so they are useless also. You get the idea.

I really love MD’s reference to anti-drug warrior, Darren Marton. You see, Marton is a “former heroin addict and (an) aspiring politician”. What MD doesn’t tell us is that he has as much credibility as MD herself … none. Probably why she spelt his name wrong. The article also quotes Tim Blair for some reason and profoundly states that, “you can't smoke a cigarette in the heroin-injecting room but you can shoot smack you bought illegally on the street into your arm”. They just can’t seem to grasp that MSIC is a medical facility.

But to get some idea about the depth of MD’s article, you need not go past the opening paragraph.

Just when you think commonsense has prevailed, when the weight of evidence and experience has put the final stake into the heart of a bad idea, someone comes along and breathes new life into it.

--Miranda Devine

The weight of what evidence? What experience? Does she mean the 4th scientific report which contradicts every criticism she has ever made? The report that once again, proves MSIC is a good idea? There has only been one official report that challenges all the other quantified research and that was led by fundamentalist, Gary Christian from Drug Free Australia (DFA). DFA are an extremist, right wing, evangelist organisation who are well known in the AOD industry for regularly trying to push junk science into the medical community. This is the same group that MD’s workmate, Piers Akerman refers to when he desperately tries to argue against MSIC.

In summary, the article titled, A Dangerous Idea That Stubbornly Refuses To Die is a good read if you love comics like Mad Magazine. They both have the same level of importance to the community and they both make you chuckle.

A Dangerous Idea That Stubbornly Refuses To Die

Miranda Devine

The Daily Telegraph 

October 2010

LIKE Dracula, there are some ideas that keep coming back as the undead. Just when you think commonsense has prevailed, when the weight of evidence and experience has put the final stake into the heart of a bad idea, someone comes along and breathes new life into it.

Take legalising drugs. We have a hard enough time dealing with binge drinking and late-night violence and all the other consequences of the legalised drug of alcohol, that you would think no one would seriously propose adding more harmful substances to the mix.

But no, the drug legalisation lobby - under the cover of harm minimisation - is gathering strength for new campaigns. They have their international meetings. They have their high-profile boosters, such as billionaire financier George Soros, who has just pledged $1 million to finance America's pro-pot force's battle over marijuana legalisation, the so-called Proposition 19.

They have their high priests - Dr Alex Wodak, long-term director of St Vincent's Hospital's drug and alcohol service, who has been trying to get marijuana legalised and sold in packets at the post office. They have their churches, such as the heroin-injecting room in Kings Cross, installed on a trial basis four years ago.

And, having done nothing demonstrable to reduce heroin use, or cause drug addicts to abstain from the substance that is ruining their lives, it was made permanent this week.

Legislation was passed in the NSW Upper House with the aid of the limp-wristed NSW Opposition, which fails to realise that a conservative party that turns its back on conservative policies never fares well at the polls.

As colleague Tim Blair points out, you can't smoke a cigarette in the heroin-injecting room but you can shoot smack you bought illegally on the street into your arm.

Former heroin addict and aspiring politician Darron Martin says: "The people of NSW should be very concerned indeed about the permanency of the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Kings Cross.

"Dr Alex Wodak, Australia's most prominent proponent of harm-minimisation ... and responsible for introducing it to Australia in 1985, now says more injecting rooms are needed in NSW. Look out for one near you."

Related Articles:
How to Cure Devine Madness - Call Dr. Wodak
The Ballad Of Alex And Miranda
Miranda Devine Vs. Reality
A Devine Nutter & That Booklet
Miranda Devine - Bitch Slapped by the Doctor
Are Flat Earth Journalist Intelligent? No ... Just Dangerous

Canada’s Push for Mandatory Sentencing of Drug Crimes

One country that appears to be progressing with rational drug laws is Canada. They have a safe injection clinic like our Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). They have just finished a heroin trial and they are often pushing more sensible cannabis laws. But all is not what it seems. Many of these initiatives that appeared under the previous government are aggressively being challenged by the current conservative, Harper administration

Under Canada's proposed new drug laws, an 18-year-old who shares a joint with a 17-year-old friend could end up in jail. Small-time addicts, who are convicted of pushing drugs near schools, parks, malls or any other prospective youth hangouts, would be automatically imprisoned for two years. And growers caught selling even one plant to a friend would also be incarcerated. -Plan For Minimum, Mandatory Drug Sentences Draws Fire - Canwest News Service

Especially disturbing, is a major bill(C-15) reintroduced to parliament by the ruling government that wants to set mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. The original bill(C-26) was introduced in 2007 but was dropped prior to the election. This bill effectively removes a judges ability to set an appropriate sentence when faced with extenuating circumstances. As pointed out by several experts, some countries, especially the US, are moving away from mandatory sentencing because it has not proven to be effective in cutting crime. In fact, mandatory sentencing has previously been deemed ineffective by 2 reports commissioned by the government's own Justice Department. This is a worrying trend where governments are commissioning reports then ignoring them if they conflict with their current policies or ideology. There has been much public scrutiny of the proposed mandatory minimum sentences but the government refuses to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the changes will work. In a public hearing, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson continually dodged the question about evidence and in typical form, waffled on until his time was up. This is an old tactic frequently used by conservative politicians who are faced more and more with science and research that rejects their often pseudo-Christian, right wing ideology - Don’t answer the question being asked, answer the question you wished they had asked. Reality, facts and research are a real killjoy sometimes.

Overall Concerns: There is no proof that mandatory minimums are effective and appropriate measures to reduce drug use and crimes related to drugs. Most evidence shows the opposite. C-26 does not address the core issue of why people use drugs. C-26 increases already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use. Abandons successful measures such as harm reduction and grass roots education programs. Moves toward expensive, failed US style war on drugs that spends tens of billions a year on enforcement and incarceration while crime rates and drug use soar. Leads to greater incarceration rates and greater burden on courts, police, and prisons. The Bill leaves it open for enforcement to go after the low level dealers and marijuana infractions (The selling of one joint or growing one plant could constitute trafficking) . Current waiting lists for drug treatment beds is from months to years, depending on the city and region, Drug Treatment Courts will only serve to put more people on a waiting list. source: Cannabis Facts

Mandatory minimum prison sentences do not work. In this case, it will just fill the prison system with mostly harmless, non violent citizens. The whole idea of enforcing a set term of imprisonment defeats the purpose of going to court and being sentenced appropriately. This type of sentencing is always aimed at the worst type of offender which is usually in the minority and as a result, nets in many people who do not deserve prison. It’s the role of judges to determine sentences, not politicians and this sets a dangerous precedent for the legal system to become a political tool. The lessons from the US should be a stark reminder that mandatory minimum prison sentencing for drug crimes is purely right wing ideology which has been allowed to interfere with a nations legal system.

Plan For Minimum, Mandatory Drug Sentences Draws Fire By Janice Tibbetts Canwest News Service May 2009 OTTAWA — Under Canada's proposed new drug laws, an 18-year-old who shares a joint with a 17-year-old friend could end up in jail. Small-time addicts, who are convicted of pushing drugs near schools, parks, malls or any other prospective youth hangouts, would be automatically imprisoned for two years. And growers caught selling even one plant to a friend would also be incarcerated. The Harper government's bill to impose Canada's first mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug crimes — removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit — has come under intense scrutiny in public hearings, which began last week. Several witnesses have warned the House of Commons justice committee the proposed legislation will fill jails with drug addicts rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission. The all-party committee will likely get an earful again Monday when it hears from another half dozen opponents, including Ottawa drug policy analyst Eugene Oscapella. "It's a wonderful gift to organized crime," said Oscapella, a lawyer who teaches at University of Ottawa. "We're going to drive some of the smaller players out of the business and they'll be replaced by people who do not respond to law enforcement initiatives." The Conservative government proposes to automatically jail dealers and growers at a time when several American states, most recently New York, have retreated from mandatory minimum sentences, saying they are a glaring symbol of the failed U.S. war on drugs. "We're going in exactly the opposite direction," said New Democrat Libby Davies, MP for Vancouver East, whose party will vote against the bill. The Bloc Quebecois also opposes the legislation, which was originally introduced in late 2007, but died last September when the federal election was called. The bill would pass in the minority Parliament if the official Opposition Liberals decide to support it — and MP Brian Murphy cautioned that "the jury is still out" for his party. "The aim of the bill is laudable, we have to crack down on organized crime and the cash cow for it seems to be drugs," said Murphy. The Liberals, at this stage, would probably push for amendments to narrow the bill's reach, rather than vote against it, he said. The United States experience in the last 25 years has shown that mandatory minimum sentences have flooded jails, with a disproportionate effect on drug addicts, the poor, the young, blacks and other minorities. The U.S. surpasses every other country by far in incarceration rates and, meanwhile, the drug business has flourished. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who appeared at the justice committee to defend his bill, was unable to supply any evidence from other countries that mandatory minimum sentences have made any difference in reducing drug crime. Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work. But Nicholson asserted that the proposed legislation is a smart response to a public outcry to crack down on the growing "scourge" of drugs. "I can tell you there is support for this bill from many ordinary Canadians who are quite concerned about drug abuse," said Nicholson, who called for expedited passage of the legislation. Davies has unsuccessfully challenged the government to supply estimates on how many more people would be incarcerated if the law passes, and the anticipated cost for provincial governments, who are responsible for jails housing offenders serving sentences of less than two years. "It's going to clog up the prison system," she warned. Critics also contend the bill is poorly drafted because it is overly broad and unclear. For instance, the proposal to automatically imprison for at least two years anyone caught selling drugs "near a school" or "any other public place usually frequented by persons under the age of 18" could mean virtually anywhere in an urban area, says the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. "Any place other than those where minors are not permitted could fall under that legislation and thus require a two-year minimum sentence be imposed," Graeme Norton, director of the group's public safety project, told the committee. The proposed legislation would impose one-year mandatory jail time for marijuana dealing, when it is linked to organized crime or a weapon is involved. The sentence would be increased to two years for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to young people, or pushing drugs near a school or other places frequented by youths. The bill would mean minimum six-month sentences for growing one to 200 marijuana plants to sell, and two years for big-time growers of 500 plants or more. There are already more than two dozen minimum prison terms in the Criminal Code, mainly for murder and offences involving firearms. © Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

Related Articles: Study: Mandatory Minimums Don't Work! - The Rand Corporation Justices Restore Judges’ Control Over Sentencing - New York Times Proposed New Mandatory Sentences For Serious Drug Offences - Schedule Ii Drugs (Cannabis And Marijuana)

Trivial Dribble Trivialises Dribbling Trivial Dribbler

Nothing irks me more than reading articles by lying, myopic conservatives who write off drug addiction as a simple matter needing simple action (usually some sort of punishment). The claims that all addicts are just weak or selfish and they need prison time to ‘get them clean’ is always the underlying theme. Australia has Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine and Timmeh Blair leading the charge but they fade into insignificance when put up beside international meathead, Anthony Daniels, better known as Theodore Dalrymple. In Dalrymple's latest attack(below) on drug addicts, he down plays heroin withdrawals and calls the suffering involved as trivial.

Theodore Dalrymple is outraged by the mollycoddling of drug addicts coming off heroin and the notion that their predicament is a matter of human rights
-The Spectator

Dalrymple is a retired doctor and psychiatrist, author and writer for The Spectator and the City Journal, both ultra conservative UK publications. The later, is a magazine published by the Manhattan Institute, an infamous US think tank that praises everything from the right including those nutty neocons. The name Theodore Dalrymple is well known around drug policy debates and has written scores of articles on drug abuse. He is often cited by prohibitionists and moral crusaders as proof of a liberal world gone mad which he plays on with great zest.

Daniels(Theodore Dalrymple) has written extensively on culture, art, politics, education and medicine drawing upon his experience as a doctor and psychiatrist in Zimbabwe and Tanzania, and more recently at a prison and a public hospital in Birmingham, in central England. He has travelled in many countries in Africa, South America, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. In his commentary, Daniels frequently argues that the so-called "progressive" views prevalent within Western intellectual circles minimize the responsibility of individuals for their own actions and undermine traditional mores, contributing to the formation within rich countries of an underclass afflicted by endemic violence, criminality, sexually transmitted diseases, welfare dependency, and drug abuse. He contends that the middle class abandonment of traditional cultural and behavioural aspirations has, by example, fostered routine incivility and ignorance among members of the working class. Occasionally accused of being a pessimist and misanthrope, his defenders praise his persistently conservative philosophy, which they describe as being anti-ideological, sceptical, rational and empiricist.
Wikipedia : Theodore Dalrymple

I came across the article (below) by Theodore Dalrymple whilst reading Fired Man Fires Up at Timmeh Blair’s blog which unsurprisingly is part of that journalistic epicentre called the Daily Telegraph (I know, stop laughing). It was a response from a well known Timmeh groupie and right wing blogger that alerted me.

Heroin withdrawal is a load of codswallop. Dalrymple Islam would be better grounds for a insanity plea. Infidel Tiger (Reply) Thu 16 Apr 09 (11:56am)

Read Dalrymple’s article for yourself and you will probably come to the same conclusion as I did. Dalrymple is no different to any other right wing proponent of moral centric, fringe science. The article could have been credited to Drug Free Australia (DFA) if his name wasn’t attached. It is really that bad. I found his previous off hand dismissal of heroin withdrawal as being no worse than a case of the flu almost incomprehensible and being trivial is just as ridiculous. The millions of people who have all attested to probably the most painful experience imaginable are not a consideration? Disregarding the physical pain of withdrawal and saying it is “psychological in origin and caused by the mythology surrounding it” beggars belief, especially coming from a physician. If this is the best they can do, you have to wonder why the anti-Harm Minimisation, anti-drug, anti-science, anti-everything sensible crowd have so much power. If you go to the source article, you will find some well qualified responses from readers that debunk Dalrymple’s exaggerations. Also take particular note of the Dalrymple’s supporters who really sum up the mindset behind his conclusions. They are subjective, moralistic, dubious and typical of simple minds who want simple answers to complex issues.

Withdrawal From Heroin Is A Trivial Matter
By Theodore Dalrymple
The Spectator
Jan 2009

Theodore Dalrymple is outraged by the mollycoddling of drug addicts coming off heroin and the notion that their predicament is a matter of human rights:

We live in Keynesian times: the answer to the economic problems created by a mountain of debt frittered away on trifles is clearly a whole mountain range of debt frittered away on trifles. In the circumstances it is good to know that a judge has done his bit to stimulate the general improvidence — sorry, the British economy. He has awarded £11,000 each to three prisoners in Winchester Prison who underwent withdrawal from heroin without benefit of further doses of heroin or of methadone and other heroin substitutes. It was against their human rights, he said. This is indeed odd. It is doubtful whether anyone ever dies from withdrawal of opiates alone. In reviewing the medical literature between 1875 and 1968, the doctors and researchers Glaser and Ball were unable to find a single case of death from withdrawal of opiates, despite the fact that the literature covered many thousands of cases. Indeed, such withdrawal is medically trivial, unlike that from alcohol and barbiturates (and sometimes even benzodiazepines such as valium). Let me quote Niesink, Jaspers, Kornet and van Ree’s book, Drugs of Abuse and Addiction: Neurobehavioral Toxicology: ‘[Withdrawal] is time limited... and not life-threatening, thus can be easily controlled by reassurance, personal attention and general nursing care without any need for pharmacotherapy.’ By contrast, 2,845 people died of methadone poisoning in Great Britain between 1996 and 2005. In 2006, 241 died of methadone, and 713 of heroin or morphine poisoning. In 2007, the figures were 325 and 829 respectively. In Dublin, more people die of methadone poisoning than of heroin poisoning. I repeat, no one dies of opiate withdrawal. I might add also that doctors have a very long history of treating the trivial condition of withdrawal from opiates in a dangerous, indeed fatal fashion. It goes without saying that we are all furious at Mr Putin’s treatment of Georgia, but few of us realise that the drug addicts of the country whose president brokered a ceasefire between Russia and Georgia — France — have caused far more harm to the population of that country than Mr Putin’s Russia. They have systematically diverted the drug with which their heroin addiction is ‘treated’, buprenorphine, to Georgia (as well as to Finland, incidentally), where scores of thousands of Georgians have addicted themselves to it. The fact that the French addicts have diverted it in this fashion is eloquent testimony to how much they needed it in the first place, and how easily they were able to deceive doctors. It might, I suppose, be argued that such drugs as heroin, methadone and buprenorphine are potentially safe when given under strict medical supervision; but such supervision is extremely difficult to enforce, given the levels of duplicity, deviousness and dishonesty among the population for whom they are prescribed. In one Canadian case, for example, a woman in a prison prescribed methadone for her withdrawal symptoms vomited it to sell it to another prisoner, who then died of an overdose. Guess whom the relatives of the dead woman sued? The evidence is pretty conclusive that the great majority, though not quite all, of the suffering caused by withdrawal from opiates, insofar as it is real and not feigned, is psychological in origin and caused by the mythology surrounding it. In the 1930s, experiments were done demonstrating that morphine addicts could not reliably distinguish between injections of water and morphine: when they received water thinking it was morphine, their symptoms abated, but when they received morphine thinking it was water, they grew worse. It has also been established that the distress of withdrawal is not correlated with the physical severity of withdrawal symptoms, and is often at its worst before, not during, withdrawal. Even accepting the ludicrous, corrupt and corrupting doctrine of human rights, it is difficult to see how it can be a human right to have a non-life-threatening condition transformed into a life-threatening one by supposed (and ineffectual) treatment. The old medical adage, first do no harm, ought to take precedence, and therefore the presumption must always be against, not for, treatment for withdrawal. That so evident and unassailable a point did not prevail in court, instead landing the British taxpayer with a total bill that no doubt ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds, is deeply emblematic of the moral and intellectual decadence into which we have fallen. This is not an isolated instance of it, either, even in the relatively small question of how we conceive of heroin addiction. The Sentencing Guidelines Council last week suggested that first-time offenders who steal from the vulnerable should be given stiffer sentences than they currently receive, but that courts should not send drug addicts who steal to ‘feed their habits’ to prison, but should consider instead drug or alcohol treatment programmes. The Sentencing Guidelines Council was attempting, as it has so often done in the past, to mislead the British public into thinking that the law has become harder on criminals when in fact it is becoming more lenient. The class of the former type of offender — the first-timers who target the vulnerable — is of course very much smaller than the second class, the addicted thief, robber or burglar. Thus, despite the impression given by headlines that say ‘Stiffer sentences for first-time offenders’, what is being proposed is a reduction in severity of sentencing. Now it does not follow from the fact that many thieves and burglars are drug-addicted that they are thieves and burglars because they are addicted. In fact, the evidence suggests that the relationship is the other way round: that whatever causes them to become criminals causes them to become addicts. In a survey in the prison in which I worked, I found that the great majority of heroin addicts sentenced to imprisonment had been imprisoned for the first time well before they ever took heroin. Since most people are convicted about ten times before they are sent to prison, and the clear-up rate of crimes is about 5 per cent (and even that, thanks to police dishonesty, is an exaggeration), it is likely that many of them had committed dozens, perhaps hundreds, of crimes before they ever took heroin. Therefore, it cannot be that they are criminals because they are addicted. Heroin addicts are not ‘hooked’ by heroin, as fishermen take fish; they ‘hook’ heroin. Most of them take it intermittently for quite a time before they take it regularly and become physiologically addicted to it. Moreover, taking opiates by injection is not incompatible with normal working. In the 1930s, the majority of morphine addicts in America went to work normally. Moreover, the Sentencing Guidelines Council must know that the Audit Commission recently found that 75 per cent of addicts did not even comply with the kind of community sentences that they recommend, and that Home Office research found that the re-conviction rate within two years of people given such sentences was 90 per cent, i.e. the re-offending rate must be close to 100 per cent. The Sentencing Guidelines Council is therefore aiding and abetting crime on a huge scale, and ought to be disbanded forthwith. Addiction should be treated as an aggravating circumstance, and an automatic additional five or ten years ought to be added to addicts’ sentences: that is, if the peace of the poor, who are the primary victims of crime, is to be protected by the government and the criminal justice system.

Related Articles:
Cold Turkey Is No Worse Than Flu - Anthony Daniels (Theodore Dalrymple)
Don’t Legalize Drugs - Theodore Dalrymple
Dalrymple and Drugs: The Value of Broad-Mindedness

Note: The third paragraph has been edited from "scores of books on drug abuse" to "scores of articles on drug abuse". Pointed out by BenjaminL.

The Christian Institute on Drugs

There has been much debate lately about the UK government’s decision to flatly reject the advice of their own appointed expert group, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) and not down grade ecstasy to a class B drug. Several media articles have suggested that by ignoring scientific evidence, common sense and reason, the UK government has failed to act in the best interests of the people.

The Christian Institute added their voice to the debate with an article titled, 'Killer' drug ecstasy to remain in class A on their website. The article was typical of their prohibitionist stance including quotes from supporters of the government’s decision.

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: “Ecstasy can and does kill unpredictably. The Government has a duty to protect the public and firmly believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug.”

Unsurprisingly, the comments were the usual mishmash of moral issues and anti-drug sound bytes.

Ian Johnston, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said: “This is not some academic or scientific exercise, this is dealing with people’s lives. If we downgrade ecstasy, we are in danger of sending mixed messages out to young and vulnerable people.”

The article even included a comment from discredited anti-drug crusader, Professor, Andy Parrott.

Professor Andy Parrott of Swansea University, who has spent more than 14 years conducting research into ecstasy, says Prof Nutt has significantly understated the number of deaths caused by the drug.

CANNABIS CLAIM
In what might come as a bit of a surprise to some, the article also included a matter-of-fact statement that down classing cannabis was a disaster.

In 2004, under advice from the ACMD, the Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C. It proved to be a disaster and the Government reversed the policy earlier this year.
The Christian Institute -  'Killer' drug ecstasy to remain in class A

But it wasn't a disaster. Cannabis use actually dropped during the period of being a class C drug. The evidence for the claimed “disaster” goes back to an earlier article by The Christian Institute:

Since the downgrade of cannabis in 2004 judges, police, parents and mental health experts have called for the move to be reversed because of the damage it has caused.


The availability of skunk - the strongest form of cannabis - has soared since the law was weakened. According to Home Office research, it now accounts for between 70% and 80% of samples seized by police, compared with 15% six years ago.


In April senior police officers called for a return to tougher laws. The Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales argued that cannabis should be returned to class B to “…send out a clear message - especially to the vulnerable and the young - that cannabis is illegal and can be dangerous.”


They said: “The downgrading to Class ‘C’ sent out the wrong message, unintentionally suggesting that cannabis was harmless and legal.”
-The Christian Institute: Lords consider plan for tougher cannabis laws

Here are the facts:

Senior police want cannabis reclassified

"This has been exacerbated by the wider availability of stronger forms of the drug. Many heroin and cocaine users began their drug dependency with cannabis use in their teens,"
-The Superintendents' Association

How about that for a statement! Hinting that cannabis will lead to heroin and cocaine dependency is straight from the anti-drug crusaders handbook of propaganda. Maybe they should have cleared up the fact that hard drug users also started drinking alcohol, coffee and slurpees too and that cannabis itself is not the factor that leads to heroin and cocaine. It ‘s mainly those at the top of the Superintendents' Association that are voicing their support to reclassify cannabis. There have been several senior police who have publicly dismissed the need to reclassify cannabis but they don’t rate a mention in any articles by The Christian Institute. Some district police chiefs have even called for an end to prohibition all together and many are not prepared to enforce cannabis laws.

Sends the wrong message
The champion of all anti-drug slogans. Whether it actually means anything in the real world is debatable. The trade off for “sending the right message” is usually the truth or even people’s lives.

Stronger potency (skunk)
Debunked. Higher potency leads to less intake which ironically is probably a a plus for stronger cannabis. A simple comparison can be made with alcohol. If someone drinks 2 bottles of beer on a given night, they wouldn’t consume 2 bottles of whisky just because it’s available. Anti-drug crusaders cannot grasp the concept that drug users pace themselves and instead subscribe to the myth that taking drugs means getting as stoned as possible, as quickly as possible.

Cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs
Disproved many years ago. The only gateway effect is from strict cannabis laws that force both hard and soft drug users into the same circles. Cannabis does not lead to users wanting something harder.

Links to mental illness

The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Advisory Council had been looking at new research from Keele University about links between cannabis and mental illness. He said the study found nothing to support a theory that rising cannabis use had led to more cases of schizophrenia.
-BBC: Police want cannabis reclassified

Cannabis use has increased ten fold since the 1960s but schizophrenia cases have not increased per capita. Also, psychosis is only triggered in those that are predisposed to the condition. Heavy use though does cause mental health problems. For an average user, moderate use does not cause mental illness.

So much for the truth.

But this is not just about the rejection of research and evidence. There is nothing factual to suggest that stricter laws prevent drug use and the fact they supported the reversal of an already successful strategy reveals how far they will go to assert their ideology. Conservative media outlets like The Christian Institute have driven the government to make irrational and totally bogus decisions that will go down in history as some of the worst policy making ever. The BBC politely sum it up.

If the government does reclassify, it would be rejecting the findings of the Advisory Council's panel of 23 drug experts, which has never happened before on a decision about drug classification.
-BBC: Police want cannabis reclassified

THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE
The Christian Institute are consistent with their agenda, using religious teachings as an excuse to support punitive treatment of drug users and the damning of harm reduction. Luckily for them, the ambiguity of the bible and a vast array of moral symbolism in religion allows them to pick and choose the parts that suit their agenda. This gives them great scope to promote their cause especially to conservatives and evangelists.

From a Christian perspective, harm reduction greases the tracks of sin.
-The Christian Institute: What we believe - Harm reduction approaches are un-Christian

Like all organisations of the religious right, they hate drugs and abstinence is king. They make several references to drug use on their website in the What We Believe section and even include Harm Reduction as a major topic.

This philosophy is superficially appealing because it has a desirable goal – the reduction of harm. Many people have been taken in by this profoundly naïve philosophy. But by opposing restraint, ‘harm reduction’ actually increases the number of people involved in a harmful activity rather than reducing it.

The aims of The Christian Institute aren’t about helping addicts or finding a realistic solution. Their selective pickings from the bible and broad moral topics are merely disingenuous attempts to push conservative values and really have nothing to do with the goodwill of a loving god.

The Bible bluntly teaches that drunkenness is wrong: “Do not get drunk on wine” (Ephesians 5:18). Intoxication and loss of control are intrinsic to taking drugs.


Intoxication is also wrong because of escapism. People cannot solve their problems by running away from them. Down the ages Christians have been at the forefront of battling against the epidemic of public drunkenness and the personal tragedy of alcoholism. Now Christians must take a stand as it becomes ever more fashionable to argue for the legalisation of all drugs.
-The Christian Institute: What we believe - Taking Drugs is Wrong

I am sure a munificent Jesus would be cringing at the idea of a profit based institution using his name to alienate people. It seems this brand of religion is void of the original Christian values and more interested in becoming powerful, political and rich.

The Christian Institute exists for "the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom" and "the advancement of education". The Christian Institute is a nondenominational Christian charity committed to upholding the truths of the Bible. We are supported by individuals and churches throughout the UK. We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture.
-The Christian Institute website - Who we are

Politicisation of Science

One of the main problems with society is the political system. It was while I was watching an interview with John Howard many years ago that it struck me how politics had taken a new turn. Howard said in an interview that the most important issue in Australia was the liberal party winning the upcoming election and they needed to focus all their efforts on achieving that win. Although it’s probably true for most politicians, I had never publicly heard this before. It had always been Australia’s future or the like that was a precursor for winning an election, not simply the need to win. By being able to openly say this in public, is it any surprise that more and more fundamentals of society would become political fodder in the quest to win an election? Those days are gone where politicians needed to appear logical. No longer did they take directions from facts, public needs or science. Basic freedoms were replaced by national security and the politics of fear. Common sense was replaced with idealism and patriotism. Science and medicine were replaced with religion and so called ‘family values’. Howard went on as PM for 3 terms over 11 and a half years. One of his profound contributions to science was silencing NGOs and government research organisations that had conflicting views to the official government spin. Research and facts became secondary to government policy and those who dared release conflicting data were faced with losing government funding. This led to the rise of groups like Drug Free Australia (DFA) whose sole purpose was to push the government’s own agenda that would normally be criticised by proper research groups. DFA were supporters of the US model that wouldn’t allow federal funding for programs that conflicted with modern christian ideology like safe sex education and needle exchanges. With most opponents now silenced in Australia, Howard had the opportunity to completely remove conflicting science from drug policy and the next step was to produce his own “research” which came via the Bishop Report - “The Winnable War on Drugs”. Luckily Howard was booted from office and the Bishop Report was doomed to bottom of the rubbish bin. Scarily, Howard had came so close to achieving the unthinkable and nearly implemented a non medical solution to a medical problem based on politics and moral/religious ideology. In the US, healthcare is an example of how medicine has become so politicised that it’s actual purpose has been overlooked and instead has become a political hot potato about socialism vs. right wing ideology. But science/medicine has been heavily politicised in nearly every country - abortion, nuclear power, alternative energy, mental health, creationism in science class etc. The two prime examples that stand out are climate change and drug policy. Both issues have been taken out of the scientific arena by the right because a pragmatic solution might upset their corporate interests or encroach on their safe, pseudo religious ‘family values’ ideology. Taking advantage of an upcoming election, a group of renown professors in Canada decided that they should write a letter to the major political parties and voice their concern. The politicisation of science had cost millions of lives worldwide and was risking the future of our planet. But can a group of experts actually get through to the decision makers? The letter is a real eye opener when you look at the content and you may start to realise how backward mankind has slipped considering how far we have progress scientifically.

Dear Sirs and Madam: We are a group of concerned scientists writing to call for the end to the politicization of science and related due processes in Canada. Below we highlight some recent examples of the mistreatment of science in Canada: • The closing of the Office of the National Science Advisor 1 • The misrepresentation of climate change science 1, 2 • The muzzling of Environment Canada scientists 3 4 • The cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service 5 • The political appointments to the board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada 6 • The halting of the Prison Tattoo Pilot Study and the suppression of the results of this study 7 • The firing of the Head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 8 • The suppression and misrepresentation of research related to Vancouver’s Supervised Injection Site 9-11 The above represent blatant examples of instances when: • Systems developed to provide non-partisan scientific advice were undermined, interfered with, or dismantled for political reasons; • Science was interrupted, suppressed and distorted for political reasons; • Scientific uncertainty was manufactured in instances where none existed; • Reputable scientists were attacked because the results of their work were unpopular or inconsistent with the views of political parties; While science is not the only factor to be considered in political decision-making, ignoring and subverting science and scientific processes is unacceptable. In light of these concerns, we are calling on all political leaders to articulate how they will work to improve Canada’s track record with respect to the treatment of science and related due processes. Yours truly, Canadian Scientists Against the Politicization of Science Encl.: Name List of Signatories References: 1. Science in retreat. Nature 2008;451(7181):866. 2. Smith C. Climate scientist claims Stephen Harper's government has muzzled experts. The Georgia Straight 2008 September 25th, 2008. 3. Munro M. Environment Canada scientist told to toe the line. National Post 2008 January 31, 2008. 4. CBC News. Minister stops book talk by Environment Canada Scientist. 2006 April 6, 2006. 5. Reuters. Canada slashes spending on wildlife protection: CBC. 2007 September 19th, 2007. 6. Hebert PC, Attaran A. A plea for transparency in Canada's "new government". CMAJ 2007;176(5):601, 603. 7. Kondro W. Prison tattoo program wasn't given enough time. CMAJ 2007;176(3):307-8. 8. Curry B. Fired watchdog quits nuclear board. Globe and Mail 2008 September 23, 2008. 9. Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall MW, Montaner JS. The Canadian government's treatment of scientific process and evidence: inside the evaluation of North America's first supervised injecting facility. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):220-5. 10. Wodak A. Going soft on evidence and due process: Canada adopts US style harm maximization. Int J Drug Policy 2008;19(3):226-8; discussion 233-4. 11. Kerr T, Wood E. Misrepresentation of science undermines HIV prevention. CMAJ 2008;178(7):964. Sent to: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, PC, MP Prime Minister of Canada The Honourable Stéphane Dion, PC, MP Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition Mr. Gilles Duceppe, MP Leader of the Bloc Québécois Mr. Jack Layton, MP Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada Ms. Elizabeth May Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Below is an article from Canadian Medicine. Canadian Medicine is the editors' news blog of Parkhurst Exchange, a monthly medical magazine based in Montreal, Canada.

Canadian researchers demand end to political interference Canadian Medicine Two can play at this game, it seems. Medical researchers and scientists upset by the "politicization of science" in Canada have decided to turn the tables by interjecting themselves into the political scene as the October 14 federal election draws near. A petition protesting the "recent mistreatment" of scientific research will be sent to all major federal political party leaders in the coming days, Canadian Medicine has learned. The petition was drafted by a group of doctors and researchers that has routinely butted heads with Stephen Harper's Conservative government over the last two and a half years: Julio Montaner (above), Thomas Kerr and Evan Wood. Dr Montaner has become an academic of worldwide renown as the recently appointed president of the International AIDS Society. The three men are all professors of medicine at the University of British Columbia, but they are best known for their roles at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, which under their leadership has produced some of the world's top medical research on supervised-injection sites, focusing largely on the downtown Vancouver facility Insite. Insite has served as a flashpoint for the conflict between the Conservative government and scientists. Despite overwhelming evidence of Insite's benefits, the government withdrew funding and then fought a battle in court earlier this year to attempt to establish jurisdiction over the project so that it could shut it down. The attempt failed when a BC judge ruled that the federal government was not within its rights. Soon after that, Health Minister Tony Clement -- who asked the attorney general to appeal the BC decision -- went on the offensive, drawing considerable opposition from the medical community when he questioned the ethics of physicians who support supervised-injection. The conflict over Insite is not the only complaint the petition mentions. Others include: "the closing of the office of the National Science Advisor" "the misrepresentation of climate change science" "the muzzling of Environment Canada scientists" "the political appointments to the Board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada" "the cuts to and reorganizing of the Canadian Wildlife Service" "the halting of the Prison-based Tattoo Pilot Study" In a letter dated October 6, addressed to "friends and colleagues," Drs Montaner, Kerr and Wood write: In light of our concerns we have prepared a letter addressed to the leaders of the federal political parties and have asked them to make clear the action they are prepared to take to end the politicization of science in Canada. We are inviting you to become a signatory to this letter. We will send this letter to all major media outlets in the coming days.

Official Guide to Serial Stupidity - Tim Blair

Tim Blair (a.k.a. Timmeh) is a renown conservative blogger and vocal denier of many so called left wing conspiracies especially global warming. So it comes as no shock when an opinion piece turns up with him denying the benefits of Harm Minimisation presented in the much panicked about,  Choosing to use booklet.

Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Tim Blair’s previous blog, timblair.net was a right wing hate site disguised as a social/political blog. Proud, blairites (a.k.a. Blair’s winged monkeys) would congregate like pack dogs at his blog for their daily spew of bigotry, aggression, abuse and anything anti-left. It was a popular site with a cast of regular contributors that lapped up every word Timmeh had to say. Blair’s style was to find a story that he fancied, copy and paste a paragraph or two and write one or two lines around it. Lazy? Probably but Timmeh had an agenda here. His rabid readers were notorious for their flock mentality, swooping down on a unsuspecting victim named on Timmeh’s blog. Like winged monkeys from the Wizard of Oz, they were tipped towards their prey and the onslaught began. There was much celebration afterwards on timblair.net as they would swap insults at the intended target’s expense. Pretty nasty stuff.

The problem was Timmeh didn’t get paid for his efforts and like all good wingnuts, he took advantage of the open market and moved his one paragraph opinions under the banner of News Ltd. His tribe was bewildered. They had been cheated by their own ideology of free enterprise. Even the US moderator, Andrea ‘The Scab’ Harris was out of luck and she lost her finger tight grip on banning anyone who she disagreed with.

Enough background on Timmeh and onto his latest dribble. Being a member of The Daily Telegraph team means you can write whatever you want regardless of the truth and you can even just make it all opinion without any factual basis. This gave Timmeh all the room he needed for his article, Official guide to serial slaying. As a RW opinionists, Timmeh has strong views on the drug debate, especially when someone tries to apply a much needed common sense approach. Timmeh didn’t like the Choosing to Use booklet that was at the centre of much controversy last week and in true, Zero Tolerance fashion, gave some utterly ridiculous comparisons. The Choosing to Use booklet was a standard anti-drugs education tool used in NSW schools but it also had some common sense ‘tips’. Zeroing in on just part of the booklet became the standard approach for the MSM and opponents. Of course, we got a completely different reaction from those that have actual experience in this area and again it became clear that moral panic and fears of “sending the wrong message” override any desire to actually help our kids be safe. The offending section of the booklet said:

The best way to keep your head together, is not to use drugs at all.

But, if you choose to experiment ... 

• Get to know your family medical history, especially about their mental health.
• Let your brain finish most of it’s development (after 18 years) before experimenting.
• Use only small amounts and not too often.

... and remember some people will react badly and become seriously unwell after using only a small amount of a drug, despite thses tips.

These tips were only part of the booklet that pointed out the many dangers of drug taking but as we saw, many were quick to attack and it became a weapon to discredit Harm Minimisation. Timmeh’s attempt at writing more than one paragraph and being witty follows:

Choosing to Steal

Studies consistently demonstrate that many young people will experiment with shoplifting at some time.

Search store ceilings for security cameras before loading your baggy clothing with items that may fetch a handy few dollars at the docks.

Always carry at least $100 so you can claim to have had enough money to buy the dismal tat you've boosted, which you always intended to pay for and which you only concealed beneath your top to hide such flimsy trinkets from greedy global crap cartels.

The collection also included, choosing to smoke, choosing to drink-drive, choosing racism, choosing to gamble, choosing prostitution, choosing abduction.

Some RW bloggers are notorious for ‘group think’, where they quote each other’s articles with a consensus that their points must be valid because another journalist writer agrees with them. The articles are often just based on one initial source as well. One of Timmeh’s “Choosing to ...” comparisons was very similar to a recent post on DrugTalk by well known Zero Tolerance nutter and Drug Free Australia (DFA) secretary , Gary Christian. 

When a community decides that it doesn't want to tolerate young hoons in their cars who don't want to admit what every person with common sense recognises, that excessive speed kills, they don't make it a public health issue (of course hoons and their victims end up in hospital), they make it a law and order issue.  It is a law and order issue because young hoons make a definite choice to travel at excessive speed, whether or not it is a speed best calculated to save the life of a toddler who gets onto the road, or an aged person crossing it.  

 

Th cost of policing what Australian society does not want tolerated is very real.  There may be a squad especially paid to catch the offenders and seize their vehicles.  And if they do their job well, they will never get rid of hoons, but they will most definitely stop the exponential growth of damage done to the community which would inevitably come about if nothing was done.

Christains’ (very apt surname) post was not about the Choose to Use booklet but might of somehow given a lazy journalist an idea for a peice he was writing. Tim Blair writes:

It is only regarding drugs that authorities are so accommodating. Reckless driving by youngsters is probably more of an inevitability than drug use, but you'll never see an official document called.

Choosing to Hoon, which advises on the correct method of performing burnouts, spotting unmarked police cars and achieving increased horsepower with nitrous oxide ("use only small amounts and not too often'').

Instead, the RTA tells us there is no such thing as safe speeding.

This is a lie. A bad driver is dangerous even when parking. A good driver can travel at speeds substantially beyond posted limits, yet present no danger.

Zero tolerance is routine when it comes to almost every form of potentially dangerous behaviour besides taking illegal drugs.

For those who know Timmeh’s agenda, they might not be surprised that he finished his piece with a reference to polar bears and that global warming is a myth.

Related Links:

Official guide to serial slaying

Serial Slaying with Semantics

Diary: Some Clarification

DIARY: I received a comment from a cyber friend today and decided to publish this article as a few people have asked similar questions or voiced their concern about myself ‘managing’ my addiction. 

Terry, this is a general comment about your site more so than about this topic as such. Specifically about the information in your sidebar actually. Also I say this as someone who has grappled with a number of addictions so, please understand my comments are not intended to be judgemental. Mate, it seems to me, that your experience is possibly somewhat atypical, your claim (and I have no reason to believe you are being dishonest) to be living a more or less "normal" (don't like the word myself, conventional might be a better substitute)life but-for-being-a-heroin-addict seems to me to be a kind of attempt to normalise your addiction. I know I kept drinking and using drugs for many years on the illusion of managability, I believed my addiction was manageable, so I kept using. I had to -like it says in the first step- admit that i was powerless and that my life had become unmanageable. 

While you continue on with the belief that your life is manageable while you continue to use, you will relapse. Obviously this isn't something I usually discuss in a public forum so you can email me if you'd like to respond, obviously you can choose to ignore or take on board what I have to say, it's entirely up to you.

For the record I have been street drug and alcohol free for five years now and I was a daily, round-the-clock abuser of a number of substances. There was a time in my life when I couldn't even imagine going a day without some kind of mind altering chemical.

First of all, I am actually a recovering addict. I am on what’s called, substitution treatment which is the most common form of treatment for heroin addiction. Substitution treatment usually involves methadone or buprenorphine which keeps the patient “stable” by maintaining their addiction with something else apart from street heroin. These substitution drugs are just as addictive as heroin but each dose is much longer lasting and doesn’t get the patient high. The idea behind it is to give the patient time to stabilise their life without worrying about finding money or drugs everyday. Once on methadone, most patients can live a fairly normal life with work and other normal functions of life. After being stable for a period, the patient can then be weaned off methadone slowly until they are free of opiates. 

Due to a pain condition and the problems of depression and some health issues from methadone, I have been switched over to slow release oral morphine (SROM) which works on basically the same principal as methadone. Morphine is not allowed to be prescribed solely for addiction in Australia but is an option for addiction treatment in some other countries. 

Although substitution treatment can get you physically clean from heroin, often the physiological cravings can lead the patient back to heroin. To succeed with substitution treatment, counselling is recommended and it increases the chances of staying clean. Many methadone patients relapse and usually it takes a few attempts. 

A major issue is that often people start on heroin because of a personal problem, particularly deep rooted physiological trauma or mental health issues like depression. When these people get clean, their problem might still persists and the chances of relapsing are high. 

As you can see, addiction is very complex and addicts are usually misrepresented by the MSM and the ignorant as just selfish, hopeless junkies. For the majority, this isn’t true and until addiction is treated entirely as a health instead of a legal issue, the politicians and MSM will continue to use the personal health issues of addicts as publicity fodder. Some other people like myself have major problems kicking opiates and spend years or even decades on methadone. For some, life on methadone is fine and recent research is showing that it might be an appropriate strategy to keep some patients on methadone indefinitely. 

The constant push to lower your dose for the goal of becoming clean is now being questioned as appropriate for everyone. As more is being discovered, alternative treatments for long term patients are being trialled overseas like prescription heroin. 

Addiction was once treated with the drug that addicts were addicted to. Just as methadone is currently used to stabilise then reduce, heroin, cocaine and morphine were once prescribed using the same model of reducing your dose until clean.

Ironically, the real problems of heroin and cocaine started when the US declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 and forced the UN to enforce it worldwide. The level of drug related crime and the mortality rates were only a fraction of what they are today. Prior to the push from the US/UN to enforce their “War on Drugs” policies, the US were one of only a few countries with major drug problems because they outlawed prescribing these drugs for addiction half a century before anyone else. 

As some countries are reverting back to prescribing heroin, their heroin related problems are decreasing steadily whilst drug related crime and major societal problems continue to infest countries like Australia and the US. Heroin prescription is now an option for long term addicts in Canada, England, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Spain. It has been extremely successful and many more countries are looking into it.

I used to use heroin up to 500-600 times a year or about twice a day. On methadone I got that down to zero for a while but I kept relapsing. This went on for several years until my back pain got worse, the depression became unbearable and my body was at it’s limits from the methadone. 

My doctor arranged for me to see a pharmacotherapist who arranged with the health department for me to switch to SROM and anti depressants. That treated my back pain, my addiction and my depression (to an extent). I wasn’t going to get off opiates any time soon and my doctor agreed that prescription heroin was suited to my situation if available. I now use heroin 12 times a year or once a month. I don’t crave heroin like I once did but use this method as a safety measure. It’s still very easy to fall into using but once a month is enough for me. If I start to stray, I can reminded myself that my time to use is coming up. It seems to work and keep away from heroin for 344 days a year. If I was in another country, I would be on prescription heroin and the difference is it is not an option in Australia. 

For those who think I am deluding myself as all good junkies do, the use of heroin as a treatment is approved by many doctors but cannot not officially be endorsed. To summarise, my treatment plan is not focussed on being free of opiates. I would love to be clean but the current thinking is that long term addicts have different needs to most heroin addicts. I have the choice to deal with my situation with street heroin or via the medical route ... I have chosen the official medical route. My treatment is long term addiction management, not the “stabilise, then reduce” treatment like most methadone patients. I have no physical need to use heroin because of the morphine (or methadone) but I still have physiological cravings. This is treated via 12 monthly doses of heroin. BTW, my situation is fully implemented and monitored by 3 medical professionals. I should also mention that you can safely take opiates all your life. they are basically non toxic and do no harm physically. Other drugs like amphetamines are a different matter. You can never manage a life of speed or alcohol for too long because of the havoc it causes on your body and brain. 

Some Won’t (Don’t Want To) Get It. 

Tens of thousands were once treated with heroin or morphine with very little problems but that changed when the US/UN enforced their abstinence or nothing approach. Abstinence should always be the first and preferred method but if that doesn’t work, then there should be several options after that like substitution treatment. The problem is that after nearly 40 years of drug hysteria and propaganda from the MSM, politicians, moralists, conservatives and the religious right, there is massive ignorance in the public arena and total abstinence is seen as the only option. 

My whole blog is based on trying to dispel the myths and personal views that dictate how we, as a society treat the drug problem. Some will never change their minds though, choosing to ignore science and medical facts and sticking to their ignorant views. Even when presented with my blog, some choose to skip over the facts and the actual content then construe their own biased views or judgements about myself.

As an unrepentant Junkie Wright, it really is just a matter of time before he cops a shot of some bad smack or before he catches a blood borne disease and goes to the biggest trip of all. I am amazed how the likes of Everett take at face value all of Wrights protestations that he has his habit “under control”. When it is very clear that Wright is in fact a most obedient slave of the poppy and that any suggestions that this addict can control his master, like those made by Wright in his blog, actually border on the delusional as any number of former addicts will testify. In the end the only ways to stay clean are to totally abstain which Wright refuses to even consider. Indeed Wright’s ability to “cope” is predicated upon some rather fragile constructs that are only ever one or two setbacks from irrevocably collapsing in a heap Typical of the left Everett is willing to make any concession to someone who her perceives as a noble “victim” he does it in relation to our Indigenous Australians and he does it with Wright. Personally I don’t care about the fact that Wright is a Junkie it is his obnoxious and belligerent comments directed at me that I object too and I refuse to treat him with kid gloves because he loves the needle more than anything else in the world.

-Iain Hall; Moralist and conservative blogger.

The above comment was made by infamous conservative want-to-be weirdo, Iain Hall. Much of his criticisms are aimed at me personally but you get the feel of the overall ignorance that he displays. 

His views reflect the usual media driven images of desperate junkies shooting up anything and not caring about sharing needles. 

The idea that any form of treatment except the “abstinence only” method is doomed to fail is typical of conservative values and ignorance. Remember that it was the US and their conservative views that interrupted over a century of treatment with their own “War on Drugs” approach that has given us the massive drug problems we have today. 

The conviction that Hall’s conservative opinions are facts are shown with his claim, “as any number of former addicts will testify”. What former addicts? We just have to take his word for it. Although Hall should never be taken seriously, his views are reflective of those who can’t comprehend that drug addiction is complex. The black and white world of some right wing conservatives will always hinder their ability to see past drug addiction as a law and order issue. Countries that have prescription heroin or safe injecting rooms are always under threat of conservative politicians regardless of the success. There is quite a lot of research now showing the huge benefits from what would have been called radical only ten years ago. You can only ignore facts for so long and the fallacious thinking like that of Hall is luckily becoming less influential on how we approach drug addiction.