New Media Vs Old Media

On the ABC’s website, The Drum examines how Wikileaks exposed the leaked classified military reports concerning the war in Afghanistan. They question why a small group like Wikileaks can produce such a shocking expose’ about the Afghani war that trumps anything produced by the mainstream media. But the real issue is, what effect is the internet having on journalism and the media.

Thirdly, the release of the Afghan logs constitutes a damning indictment on the traditional pillars of journalism. Wikileaks is a tiny organisation: basically, a bunch of computer nerds supported by a handful of volunteers. Yet, in the short period of its existence, it has broken an extraordinary number of big stories, from the 'Collateral Murder' footage of the Apache helicopter in Iraq to corruption in Kenya. As one admirer put it, "Wikileaks has probably produced more scoops in its short life than the Washington Post has in the past 30 years".

-- The Drum: The Power Of New Media (by Jeff Sparrow)

It was just too tempting and I had to add my 15¢ worth.

The Drum Comments:

Terry Wright

28 Jul 2010 5:10:09pm

--

New media such as the internet is having a huge effect that we may not be noticing. 

Take drug policy for example. Much of us get our information about drugs from the movies, the MSM or what the government tell us. Now it only takes 15 minutes on the web and you will find that most of what we have been told was wrong or grossly exaggerated. This is challenging one of politics most potent weapons - scare campaigns about drugs.

It's only been over the last 5 years or so that many drug myths perpetuated by the government have been publicly debunked. These myths were so heavily promoted in an attempt to appear "Tough on Drugs" that they somehow became "facts". The cannabis gateway theory, crack babies, ecstasy killing a generation, crack/ice being instantly addictive, the ice epidemic, the ecstasy epidemic, the skunk epidemic, the honeypot effect around MSIC etc. - all myths that were debunked by easy access to the internet.

Remember the recent mental health panic concerning cannabis? Remember the articles in the MSM and dire warnings from politicians? Remember the sudden surge from the states to ban drug paraphernalia and increase drug penalties for pot? All because of some picky reporting from the MSM especially the Murdoch press. It took a constant stream of rebuttals from those who bothered to analyse the research and evidence to encourage the public to check for themselves. Now, whenever someone wheels out the old anti-cannabis rhetoric, they are bombarded with facts and links to research that would have not been publicly available a decade ago.

How many times have we heard some swarmy politician slamming another politician for being "Soft on Drugs"? Nearly every single "Soft on Drugs" slur has been on someone who puts forward a rational, evidence based suggestion but without the ability to easily check facts, scary sound bites about evil drug dealers targeting your children catch the public's attention. 

Luckily, we can now just google any new proposal and decide for ourselves rather than rely on politically motivated spin or the usual drug hysteria that makes great headlines in the MSM. We just have to look to the US, where the "War on Drugs" was causing so much carnage but was never fully challenged due to constant lies and propaganda from the DEA and other anti-drug groups. Most of the media were hesitant to criticise the "War on Drugs" but the internet changed all that. Now, the "War on Drugs" is targeted regularly and the government has made more positive changes than ever before in it's history. In fact, the whole world is rapidly embracing harm minimisation as the public become more aware of the facts instead of the BS fed to us in a closed information environment. 

No wonder the government wants an internet filter.

I love the internet. And The Australian Heroin Diaries wouldn’t exist without it. I especially love the way you can provide links to real information to debunk the lies and exaggerations we so often see.  Being able to discredit misinformation and political posturing gives us a unique power reminiscent of what Don Dunstan once said - to keep the bastards honest. Well, that’s the theory anyway. 

What surprises me most though, is that many of the usual suspects haven’t caught on that facts can be checked in a few minutes with a quick google. Only recently, the WA premier, Colin Barnett was shooting his mouth off with scary lies about the dangers of cannabis and why WA had to toughen up their drug laws. The comments section of the PerthNow website was inundated with posts challenging Barnetts’ silly claims and the fact checking power of the internet was on display for all to see. 

Most politicians are sleazy and will say anything to try and win over voters but what is the media’s excuse? It seems contradictory that on one hand, they take full advantage of the whiz-bang features that a digital world offers them but then on the other hand, they overlook the easy access to factual information that may not coincide with their own reporting. News Ltd. anyone?

My distaste for anything Murdoch is no secret. Not only have they systematically lowered the standards of journalism around the world but their lack of ethics and agenda driven reporting continue to influence an ignorant public with misinformation, sensationalism and modern conservative ideology. And in what seems like a surreal joke, Murdoch has decided that we should pay to read what he calls, quality journalism. He argues that “quality journalism” is worth paying for and just like buying a newspaper, there should be a charge to read their garble. This will probably come as no surprise but The Guardian in the UK reports that News Ltd’s, The Times has lost almost 90% of online readership after just three weeks of subscription only access. It seems, most people do not want to pay for News Ltd’s “quality journalism” after all. Will Australians pay to read The Daily Telegraph or The CourierMail online? What about The Adelaide Advertiser or The Herald-Sun? It probably depends on how much “quality journalism” there is.

My response in the The Drum article included a dig at the proposed censorship bill called the internet filter. It is the single biggest political issue facing us today. No matter how wonderful the new media is and how much it cuts through the bullshit forced on us, it is pointless if we can’t access it. The internet censorship filter is designed to take away our access to information. Information that can’t be controlled or filtered by those with power. What Senator Conroy and the Labor government don’t understand is that it’s so obvious to the public what they are up to. Just like in 2006 when John Howard changed the media ownership laws and allowed his political ally, Rupert Murdoch to control a countrywide media conglomerate. Only this time, we have all had a taste of what the internet can provide and giving up our open access to it is just not going to happen.

One of the topics flagged for being banned via the proposed internet filter is information on how to use drugs. Ironically, the government itself already supplies funding to NGOs that publish information that help users prepare their drugs for injection. There are plenty of websites and brochures that explain how to get around the protection mechanisms of opiate based pharmaceuticals, giving a step by step guide on how to extract the goodies from specially sealed pills. There are also guides on how to safely inject heroin/speed/cocaine etc. including addresses for where to obtain free syringes. Under the rules of the proposed internet filter, these websites will disappear. It just means that those seeking this information will either view these websites hosted overseas, loose an arm or die. Is this really helping anyone? Who is the target for limiting information on drugs? Kids maybe? Recreational users? Isn’t this even more of a reason not to ban these sites?

To sum up, the internet has given us access to information that scares the government. For the first time, the public doesn’t have to be limited to information that corporations and governments dictate to us. We are free to check facts, choose alternatives or switch off altogether. The argument that certain topics are taboo already and we can’t access them now is simply because we have no say in the matter. Our government censors whatever they want and we are left to argue with a faceless bureaucracy, always with no success. When 95% of Australians disagree with the internet filter, experts keep proving it won’t work and a 15 year old kid can hack it in 30 minutes but the government still refuses to budge, what chance did we have before the internet? The actions of Senator Conroy are a perfect illustration that the government will apply any censorship they want and no amount of logic or public pressure will influence their decision. In other words, we do not want the current censor board’s decisions on what’s restricted so using that as an argument is pointless. We must decide for ourselves what we and our families view according to our own set of standards. Why should we allow the government to decide what we, as adults can or cannot view? Especially when they have such a dreadful record.

Some Good Advice from the MSM

After the NSW government pulped the Choosing to use ... but wanna keep your head together? booklet, we got a blunt reminder that Harm Minimisation is still on the black list in Australian politics. The Howard government might be gone but drug hysteria lives on albeit without the fanfare. So it comes as a surprise when the MSM publish tips on safe drug use via a regular and popular column in the Sydney Morning Herald.

This is not to say kids have to take anything that's pushed at them - Christ, I'd hope they'd have the fortitude and character I lacked at their age to say 'no' - but if they are going to do it, 'take half of what you're offered' is a pretty sound rule of thumb. -Sam de Brito. All Men Are Liars(SMH Column)

All Men Are Liars is a SMH column by Sam de Brito giving a male perspective in response to the many girlie columns discussing sex, personal image, mating rituals, sex, career advice, fashion and sex. I can’t really comment on the quality of the content but I must say I admire what I stumbled onto early one morning. Here was a popular columnist giving sound, rational advice to kids when confronted with drugs. It wasn’t the usual rhetoric but real world advice that might save some teen from unnecessary harm or suffering. Whether the advice was missing the complete gamut of safety measures or considered to be sending the wrong message, it was recognition that in the real world, drugs are present whether we like it or not. 

Even more surprising were the comments. No moralising or the silly Just Say No counter argument but instead many additional tips or rules that parents used for their own kids. The article wasn’t condoning drug use or promoting it but rather making the point that some basic advice on safe use was more responsible than the ignorant belief and wishful thinking that it just wouldn’t happen to our kids.

On a negative front, it is really frustrating that a columnist for a newspaper can give advice about safe drug use for kids but when the professionals do it, the world falls apart. Why wasn’t this article damned by the moralists who object to teaching safe practices for drug use? Why wasn’t sending the wrong message made more important than the safety of our kids? How did Sam de Brito get away with teaching the young on how to use dangerous and addictive drugs? Why wasn’t the SMH pulped and the government internet filter introduced early for this emergency? If the advice of addiction experts and medical professionals is rejected by way of destroying their life saving booklets, surely the author of a gossip style column who gives tips on safe drug use should be questioned about his ethics? Maybe it’s because he gives tips on the safe use of alcohol which is deemed as responsible. Maybe it’s because he acknowledges many of the issues that drive the government’s binge drinking initiative. Maybe because it won’t help win over voters by criticising someone who’s popular. Either way, it’s refreshing to see some common sense in the MSM instead of the usual drug hysteria that dominates our lives. Well done Sam.

Take Half of What You're Offered Sam de Brito SMH - All Men Are Liars It remains to be seen how successful the Rudd Government's $20 million anti-binge drinking television advertising campaign will be and while I wish it every success, I dunno how it's gonna compete against the hundreds of millions spent to push piss as the essence of the Aussie way of life. You can't turn on the TV over summer (or winter) without seeing boofy blokes from every sporting code blowing the froth off the sponsor's finest and giving the camera a wink, just in case you hadn't worked it out: getting drunk rules. I daresay that's the terrible hypocrisy that leaps out at most teenagers, who more than anything want to be adults: the entire friggin' world glorifies sucking piss - sportsmen, politicians, celebrities and mum and dad are constantly falling foul of over-indulgence - yet nascent teen drinkers are expected to exercise control on the drink. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know I'd tell my kids to have a water every second drink, switch to light beer if you're getting stupid, stay away from shots and don't get in cars with anyone once you or they have started boozing ... Kids are going to drink, a lot of them are going to take drugs as well, and no amount of scare tactics is going to change that because young people do things to scare themselves, to scare their mates, to discover their limits. A few months ago I was chatting with a doctor who's run some of Sydney's busiest hospital emergency rooms, dealing with overdoses of all descriptions. "The thing I tell my nephews and nieces is 'take half of what you're offered,'" he said. I'm sure mums and dads aren't too excited about the assumption their children will take drugs, but advice like this operates from a real-world understanding. "I've seen so many people come through hospitals who wouldn't be there if they're followed that simple maxim," he said. This is not to say kids have to take anything that's pushed at them - Christ, I'd hope they'd have the fortitude and character I lacked at their age to say 'no' - but if they are going to do it, 'take half of what you're offered' is a pretty sound rule of thumb. I'd add a few others to the advice I give my children, some of which I'm robbing from my book No Tattoos Before You're Thirty (now in it's eighth reprint!) Don't do drugs with strangers If there's a chance you're gonna lose control, you want to be among friends, not some lurking date-rapey Casanova you just met on the dance floor. Friends will throw you into a cab and stay with you until the refrigerator stops speaking Urdu. Never inject anything It's so beyond crazy. You're breaking the sacred seal protecting you against the world - your skin. Don't share bank notes snorting coke The blood vessels in your nose can rupture doing any drug nasally. That $20 note may be buying you a lifelong case of Hepatitis or worse. Don't smoke hydro Hydroponic marijuana is chock full of fertilisers and pesticides. If you're going to have the odd joint, stick with naturally grown weed - and stop when the voices start. Take drugs later in life This is a little tougher, because kids will be kids, but research shows about the worst thing you can do to a developing brain is smash it with drugs and booze. I'd encourage my kids to stay away from the Persians until at least 18. Don't get in cars with people who've done drugs So many teenagers understand the whole drink and driving thing, yet lose that common sense when it comes to friends who are stoned, on pingers or pumping the pipe and want to drive. My kids are getting a couple of Cabcharge e-tickets to take out with them for such occasions. So that's a short and none-too-exhaustive list of drug and booze advice I'd give to youngsters. I'd love to hear yours.

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

A Devine Nutter & That Booklet

Not only does a sensible, fact based booklet for students get shredded in a frenzy of moral panic and excessive ignorance but the dangerously stupid Miranda Devine, proves once again how low she will stoop for a story bashing Harm Minimisation. 

In her latest opinion piece, Harm minimisation: just say no, Miranda Devine focusses on the drug education booklet that has caused so much controversy this week. Her articles about drugs are usually flawed with lies, deception and misinformation and get pulled apart every time by people who know the facts. Her latest effort is no different.

Her first example is Anna Wood who died whilst taking ecstasy, although her death was not even due to the drug itself. Devine notes this but slams Dr. Alex Wodak and HM for telling the truth about it. Her example backfires and shows that she considers evidence is less important than perception. Not a good start. This leads into the first of many ridiculous statements: 

“Anna Wood was being co-opted without their permission as a poster girl of the drug harm-minimisation lobby, which has shaped debate about drug use in Australia for 25 years - but is losing credibility as contrary evidence piles up.”

-Miranda Devine. Article - Harm minimisation: just say no

Harm Minimisation is not losing credibility at all except in the tiny, nut sized brains of lunatics like Devine. Dr. Alex Wodak, the director of St. Vincent's Hospital's Alcohol and Drug Service wrote to Anna’s parents and wanted them to help spread the word that if Anna had more knowledge about the effects of ecstasy, she may have lived. For Miranda Devine to give the impression that the actual cause of death by overdosing on too much water seems far fetched, when it is the truth, is disgusting.

The main topic of Devines article is the booklet, Choosing To Use, by the Sydney West Area Health Service. It was not only taken from distribution but shredded. This was one of the many knee jerk reactions from the usual suspects - politicians quick to jump on the drug hysteria bandwagon, religious groups and of course, the MSM. 

But signs that the harm-minimisation lobby's influence may be waning came this week when the NSW Health Minister, Reba Meagher, buckled to angry parents and banned a brochure, Choosing To Use, produced by her Sydney West Area Health Service, which advised year 9 and 10 students "how to keep your head together" if they "choose" to experiment with illegal drugs.

-Miranda Devine. Article - Harm minimisation: just say no

How can a so called Health Minister, react so quickly and just pulp a batch of booklets that were originally approved? I doubt if Reba Meagher even read it. The booklet was fact based and did not encourage drug use at all but rather gave some very basic guidelines on common sense. These 'tips' might just save some lives and if that is a bad point then we really are in a mess. This is the danger of ZT ... people's well being and their lives are secondary to that much hyped up myth of 'sending the wrong message'. Man, how many times has this been trotted out as the main reason to remove the booklet in question instead of actually protecting our children. It is disgraceful that feeling comfortable is more important than kids lives. The booklet though was defended by those with an insight into it’s benefits but denounced by moral elitists, the ignorant and self serving politicians.

"We developed the materials in recognition that drug use and experimental drug use is very prevalent among young people.

We know from ongoing school surveys that up to 50 per cent of young people have experimented with alcohol and illicit drugs by the time they're 16."

-Kevin Hedge, Director - Sydney West Area Health Service / Drug and Alcohol Services

"No, I'm not sorry that we're giving that message and taking that approach," he told the ABC.

"As an educator myself, I've always been of the view that the best education for young people is to give them sufficient information and support and advice so that they themselves can be good decision-makers."

-Trevor Fletcher, Deputy Director-General for Schools - NSW

"The fact is ... every single young person in Sydney, and in fact the whole of Australia, will at some point encounter drugs... We can't avoid that and I believe that they do need education on how to deal with those occurrences."

- Tony Trimingham, Founder - Family Drug Support

S.A. bong shop detective, Ryan Hidden is the latest Zero Tolerance weapon and Devine had no trouble fitting him in to the article. The problem is that Hidden's accounts of HM failing him seem a wee bit dubious, perfect for a dubious article. Hidden recently claimed at the DFA Watch blog: 

Just stumbled upon my name in the above diatribe (who actually reads this?) and want to set the record straight: I am not religious. I don't view drug use as a moral issue, I simply want to prevent others experiencing the trauma and despair I lived as an addict.

-Ryan Hidden. DFA Watch

Paul from DFA Watch produced the evidence that Hidden was all the things he denied. It was hysterical to read reference after reference that Paul dug up.

Hidden’s claims of marijuana addiction isn’t even a recognised condition and his version of HM failing him can be countered by my experience, if we are indeed using personal experience as a replacement for scientific research. 

But he remembers that when he tried to get help to stop his drug use at 16, he came up against the laissez faire attitudes of drug counsellors who would never tell him he needed to stop smoking cannabis. Instead they would say: "Make sure you clean your bong regularly," and suggested he might consider limiting his use to weekends.

-Ryan Hidden. Article - Harm minimisation: just say no

Devine treats Hidden’s comments as gospel but a closer look shows a recent trend by the Zero Tolerance nutters to claim that marijuana is addictive but it is not shared by experts. The drug counsellors he talks of know marijuana is not addictive but a dependancy and breaking the cycle would be more effective than trying to stop outright because of relapse. I’m sure there’s more to the proposed strategy but that would diminish the hysteria. 

Finally, Devine trots out her rubbery figures once again. I am dumbfounded how she can continue to deceive her readers with such regularity and not get called in by her employers to explain herself. Her dodgy evidence from her last two articles on drugs were completely flawed and this article is no better. 

Of course, most young people will use alcohol at some time, and we have a hard enough time coping with the harmful consequences. It's legal, available and popular. Most will not use illegal drugs. In fact, cannabis use by 12- to 15-year-olds fell from 15 per cent in 1996 to 6 per cent in 2005, the Australian Secondary School Students' Use of Alcohol and Drug Survey shows.

-Miranda Devine. Article - Harm minimisation: just say no

In fact over 60% of people WILL use drugs in their life time. Using a small range of 12 - 15 year olds that participated in a school survey where they are constantly told that drug users are the scum of the earth and any use will lead to hell, is misleading. What about 16 - 21 year olds? The “Tough on Drugs” campaign also pushes the Zero Tolerance policy that users will be heavily punished and I’m sure many 12 -15 year olds would be hesitant to put their hand up in that atmosphere.

Yet harm minimisers continue to push for legalisation of the drug even while its popularity wanes and medical evidence mounts of the risks of psychosis and depression. The University of Mississippi this week also found cannabis potency has more than doubled since 1983.

-Miranda Devine. Article - Harm minimisation: just say no

For someone working in the media, Devine doesn’t keep up to date very much. The potency myth has been exposed as a crock of shit. Even though most knowledgable people already knew this, it took the the State University of New York to publically declare the obvious.

While the drug's potency may be rising, marijuana users generally adjust to the level of potency and smoke it accordingly, said Mitch Earleywine, who teaches psychology at the State University of New York in Albany and serves as an adviser for marijuana advocacy groups.

"Stronger cannabis leads to less inhaled smoke," he said

-SMH / The Age (AP)

The links to mental health problems have been wildly exaggerated of late. There is no doubt that those susceptible to or have existing mental health issues have an increased risk of responding badly to cannabis but the chances of serious harm is minimal at best and vastly less dangerous than the effects of alcohol. In fact people working in music venues with loud music also risk mental health problems. As do ambulance workers, doctors, nurses and forensic scientists. I haven’t even touched on powerful legal drugs especially for depression. If a drinker starts having behaviour issues like being violent or has episodes of depression, they are wise to cut back their drinking but Devine & co cannot fathom that a cannabis smoker should do the same. Their frenzied approach dismisses all drug use as dangerous and research just doesn’t back their beliefs. Not that lack of evidence would stop them because they will create their own interpretation as we see again and again. 

Miranda Devine, Ann Bressington, Bill Muehlenberg etc. are to me, some of the most dangerous people in society. They spread fear and lies, ignoring evidence and facts and all for their own personal agendas. Bressington is condemning people to a short, miserable life with HIV/AIDS by encouraging the sharing of the now illegal ‘ice’ pipes that can transfer blood caused by burnt lips. Her 'caring attitudes' is also driving grass smokers to resort to home made bongs and they risk permanent damage to their lungs from the toxic plastics used. Yes, a really caring attitude from a delusional, power mad bogan. Miranda Devine is part of the propaganda campaign that keeps government ministers scared to be labelled ‘soft on drugs’ if they dare question the failed punitive approach. A ploy shameless used by Bressington in the past. Their personal views costs lives and causes misery beyond comprehension. Their scant regard for science and medical based treatment is disgusting especially as they claim to be authorities on such complex issues. Forgive me if I sound critical of the Zero Tolerance crowd but simply put, they have blood on their hands and it upsets me that they prey on people’s suffering as a way to satisfy their own selfish motives.

Related Links

Bad Mood Bubby - Smelly Tongues Blog

Nanny State in Untrammelled Triumph - Kings Cross Times

Youth for DFA biography - DFA Watch

Harm Minimisation: Just Say No - Miranda Devine (SMH)

Education Department in Disarray Over Drug Pamphlet - Daily Telegraph