Once Again, Barnett Proves He is a Liar

Colin Barnett has declared the increasing use of illegal drugs - in combination with binge drinking - is at the heart of Perth's record of street violence.

-The West Australian

Er, sorry Colin but drugs alone rarely cause people to be violent. Booze has officially taken that honour. In fact, alcohol is by far, the most violent drug on earth. Never before in the history of man has a drug proven to cause so much violence, aggression and crime. And to top it off, it's legal, easy to buy and heavily endorsed by celebrities, sports stars and politicians. 

How many people do you know who become violent on ecstasy, cannabis or heroin? Even the so called "ice epidemic" causing violence is a myth.

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

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

Associate Professor John Fitzgerald, Principal Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Melbourne: Yeah, and it is not to say that ice use is not problematic.

-Melbourne University Up Close Episode 15

Alcohol accounts for 97% of all violence whilst under the influence of a substance. Illicit drugs ranks a lowly 3%. And out of that 3%, sleep depravation from amphetamine type drugs is responsible for half of that, not the violent reaction from the drug itself. With less than 1.5% of substance induced violence associated to illicit drugs, it is easy to assume that 99% of those classed as being aggressive are naturally violent regardless of any substance they may have taken. 

Drinking is not new - and I don't defend or excuse that in any sense. But excessive drinking and combining with drugs is clearly leading to more violent behaviour

-Colin Barnett

Any drug taker will tell you the simple truth ... drugs cause the opposite reaction of being violent. Many of them bring on confidence, friendship, empathy, sexuality, pleasantness, a need to communicate, feelings of euphoria, camaraderie etc. Other drugs make you drowsy and uninterested in anything confrontational. Others will make you "trip" where everything around you becomes magical and exciting. No drug I know of gives the user any need to be aggressive or violent ... except booze.

But what clearly stands out in this article is the contradictory comments by the premier compared to those who actually patrol the streets - The Police. 

WA Police have emphasised alcohol rather than drugs in the debate about violence in entertainment precincts that has raged after recent tragic incidents in Northbridge and Cottesloe.

Operation Unite commander Supt Scott Higgins said the root of violence was complex but alcohol was a consistent theme.

-The West Australian

Is this because the premier's drug of choice is booze ... A dangerous drug that harms people thousands of times more often than street drugs? 

"With people drinking in parks, homes, in pubs and clubs, whether they're taking drugs or not taking drugs, the consistent thing is alcohol," he said.

-The West Australian

Or is it because the drug he prefers to use causes far more carnage to society than any illicit drug?

What I really want to know is why the opposition and the media has not challenged Barnett to these ludicrous claims? There is no evidence whatsoever or scientific report ever produced that associates the effects of illicit drugs with excessive violence.  In fact, there are only two examples of violence resulting from drugs. One is when drugs are used in conjunction with alcohol and the other is in the business side of selling drugs. Ironically, both of these are purely the result of government policy.

I'm sorry Colin but you are once again on record, lying about the issue of illicit drugs. Are you really that arrogant that you think the vast majority of Western Australians don't have the ability to check your claims on the internet? Or are you just so out of touch with reality that you think the internet is just some gizmo from a sc-fi novel? My guess is that you know darn well that the failed policy of drug prohibition has wreaked havoc on society for nearly 50 years but since it continues to win you votes, you will keep pretending to support it. And we wonder why the public thinks that Australian politics has gone to shit?

Premier Says Drugs Have Role In Violence

The West Australian 

Gareth Parker And Gabrielle Knowles, 

May  2011

Colin Barnett has declared the increasing use of illegal drugs - in combination with binge drinking - is at the heart of Perth's record of street violence.

As WA Police continued to emphasise the role of alcohol amid a weekend crackdown that saw 435 people charged in Operation Unite, the Premier said drinking had always been an issue but the level of illegal drug taking was new.

He also suggested young West Australians' higher incomes relative to the rest of the nation could be fuelling the drug abuse.

"There is no doubt income levels in WA are probably $20,000 more than the rest of the country and there are a lot of people, often young people, who are on high incomes," Mr Barnett said.

"Many of them might be fly-in, fly-out mine workers who are in Perth in their week off, they have a lot of money to spend and they party too hard.

"Drinking is not new - and I don't defend or excuse that in any sense. But excessive drinking and combining with drugs is clearly leading to more violent behaviour."

WA Police have emphasised alcohol rather than drugs in the debate about violence in entertainment precincts that has raged after recent tragic incidents in Northbridge and Cottesloe.

Operation Unite commander Supt Scott Higgins said the root of violence was complex but alcohol was a consistent theme.

"With people drinking in parks, homes, in pubs and clubs, whether they're taking drugs or not taking drugs, the consistent thing is alcohol," he said.

At the weekend, police charged 435 people with 462 offences, including 391 traffic offences, 10 assaults and five assaults on public officers.

Supt Higgins said police were most concerned by the number of motorists drink-driving, with 138 caught driving over the limit, including 18 charged with driving under the influence.

In addition, a Victoria Park man has been charged over a one-punch assault in Northbridge that left a 26-year-old with head injuries.

The man hit his head on the pavement and lost consciousness after he was allegedly king-hit outside the Republic Nightclub in Shafto Lane about 12.30am on Saturday.

Police claim the attacker, also 26, was thrown out of the nightclub seconds earlier and allegedly punched the other man after mistaking him for someone else.

NOTE:

Colin Barnett was the winner of the 2009 Bucket Head of the Year award. Here it is again just to refresh your memory.

THE BUCKETHEAD OF THE YEAR - 2009

The ultimate anti-drug zealot who made a huge impact on the downfall of rational thinking and sensibility in 2009. Unlike the category for Most Dangerous Anti-Drug Campaigner, The Bucket Head of the Year can be literally a “Bucket Head” Think of Rove, Bronwyn Bishop, Daryl Somers etc. They might be dangerous or just plain stupid but they must be worthy of scorn and criticism.

Colin Barnett

WA Premier (LP)

Trying to top last year’s winner, Anne Bressington, is not easy but WA premier, Colin Barnett has made a gallant attempt. Introducing new laws infamous for failing globally, to replace existing laws that have been succeeding could be interpreted as brave and insightful. Unfortunately for Colin “Barney Rubble” Barnett, it wasn’t. It was seen for what it really was ... an out-of-touch old man clinging desperately to his stagnant ideology and putting faith into strategies that have failed miserably for the last 40-60 years which are rapidly on their way out. Only a brave man indeed would remove a modern, successful drug policy because of myths like “The Gateway Theory” and other junk science. Someone should point out to Barney that the internet(yes Barney, that TV looking thing on your desk) means politicians can no longer just say what they want and the public have to take it as gospel. 

Barney is also introducing “Stop and Search” laws, claiming it will cut down on street violence and anti-social behaviour by seeking out those carrying knives or drugs. In certain designated areas, police can stop and search any person without provision of reasonable suspicion. What the hell drugs have to with weapons is yet to quantified.

Barney is a dying breed which probably sums up the current Liberal Party and some of the Labor Party. It's not that his drug policies are just useless and counter-productive but they are also dangerous. To underplay the deaths and misery caused by these policies for political gain or for personal ideology is disgraceful and should be seen as a criminal act. A “Tough on Drugs” mentality has caused massive damage in every country that adopts this approach and after 100 years of drug prohibition globally, some common sense is finally emerging. Sadly, this doesn’t include Colin Barnett.

On a lighter side ... man, is he funny or what? That bloodhound face looking like it was made from plastic. The monotone political rhetoric putting TV viewers to sleep. Walking around Northbridge at night to prove it is family friendly only to be confronted with some druggie asleep in a doorway. But it was an accidental camera pan of several heavyweight body guards that blew his cover as the brave leader walking the streets alone. And of course, the references to old, debunked urban myths about drugs that had much of WA’s youth rolling around the floor in hysterics and experts scratching their heads in bewilderment. Good stuff, Barney.

I proudly present to you, this years BucketHead of the Year for 2009 ... WA Premier, Colin Barnett.

Related Articles

WHAT?!!! ... Another Dickhead Lib from WA

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead

The Liberal Party on Drugs

Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters

WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues

All Drugs Are Not The Same

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

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

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

Wowser

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Schedule I Drug:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision

--Wikipedia: Controlled Substances Act

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Findings

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

Interpretation

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

Funding

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (UK).

Source: The Lancet

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

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

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

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

Heroin Addiction is a Bitch

I hate heroin … I also love it. I love it when I have it but hate it when I don’t. It’s an easy drug to love and an easy drug to hate but since most of us can’t afford to be pinned all the time, there’s probably more hate than love. Yep, using heroin is definitely a love-hate relationship.

Luckily, I’m not currently using heroin everyday as I am on substitution treatment. My heroin use is limited to about once a month, which might sound like a lot to non-users but believe me, it’s nothing compared to the usual 90 or so hits needed each month when you’re an active user. 

But this is where we need to separate the myths from reality. There is a big difference between the public perception of heroin addiction and the actual cycle of heroin-methadone-relapse-heroin-methadone-relapse... etc. For a longer term addict, using heroin is not about the high but something far more alluring … normality. The quest to feel some of those human traits like optimism, happiness, contentment etc. far exceeds the need to get high. Substitution treatments like methadone, buprenorphine and Suboxone might help with withdrawals or be a life changer for many but the stark truth is that they can also help fuel depression and emptiness. I have experienced this first hand and I must admit … I didn’t like it. The methadone blues are not on my wish list for Santa.

When a person is addicted to something they cannot control how they use it, and become dependent on it to cope with daily life.

--Medical News Today

I once experimented with using heroin everyday instead of methadone and surprisingly, I found myself far more productive and level headed than I had been in years. It cost me well over $1500 for the week and I needed to use three times a day, including an afternoon hit at work. Not exactly conducive with leading a normal life.

What if you could use heroin everyday without having to worry about the law and the money to afford it? Is it really any different to the 700mg of Slow Release Oral Morphine (SROM) that I take everyday? Is it any different to a daily dose of methadone? Some countries prescribe heroin (diacetylmorphine) to longer term addicts who don't respond to other treatments and so far, it has been very successful. Unfortunately, Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is not available in Australia so any attempt to self medicate with heroin, must be done illegally and expensively, away from medical supervision.

Methadone remains a pretty good first-line treatment, but either the switch to heroin or using heroin as an adjunct obviously has increased effectiveness for this difficult population.

-- Dr. Martin Schechter: University of British Columbia

Heroin addiction is a bitch. But so are the current alternatives. Those who do not respond well to the available treatments like rehab, detox or substitution treatment, are in a real bind and inevitably turn to crime to fund their addiction. This is a costly outcome for both the user and society, especially when there is a ready solution like Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT). I often think that if I could just get my hands on enough money, I could stock up on diacetylmorphine(heroin) and start to experience a better quality of life. My depression goes away when medicated on heroin and I start to feel somewhat human again. When dosed with heroin, I don’t look like a junky nor act like one but instead, I am capable of performing in a high pressure job, contributing to my community and living a productive life. The simple truth is that heroin can be an effective anti-depressant for some people.

But the dreaming must stop. After 40 years of anti-drug propaganda and the never ending message that heroin addicts are dysfunctional, dangerous sub-humans, the idea that heroin itself might be an effective treatment is just too much for the public and politicians to grasp. Each year, we churn out more and more opiate addicts and although many will finally kick their habit, many will not. Out of this remaining group will be those who were born with a predisposition for opiate addiction e.g. an imbalance in their brain's chemistry, some of the 66 known genes that promote the need for opiates, a persistent impairment of synaptic plasticity in a key structure of the brain etc. It may be impossible for some people to comprehend but this small group of addicts have a physical problem and are not simply selfish losers with no will power. But try telling that to the powers-that-be or a largely ignorant public.

We have an increasingly clear idea of how genetic and early childhood influences lie at the heart of the development of addiction and how the neurochemistry of the brain renders users unable to simply stop using.

--Charlie Lloyd: Senior Lecturer at York University

In 2010, it’s abysmal that a so called “advanced society”, continues to promote laws that punish these people. At the top end are the addicts that sell drug to other addicts. Amazingly, they are lumped into the same class as child molesters, murderers and rapists. But these small time user/dealers are not doing it for profits or the lifestyle but to self medicate a medical condition. It’s a catch-22 situation where they have 2 options, both of which attract harsh legal penalties and public vindictiveness. When confronted with the choice between crimes that hurt people like stealing, theft, robberies etc. or simply selling drugs to friends or other users, most will choose the latter. But deciding not to inflict any pain on others and instead, choosing a victimless crime like drug dealing, we condemn them with as much venom as possible. 

Many countries even have mandatory drug laws that take away the power for a judge to intervene when there are mitigating circumstances. Incredibly, in 1956, the US passed the first mandatory sentence via an act that made a first time cannabis possession offence a minimum of 2 to 10 years with a fine up to $20,000. It was repealed in 1970. In 1973, New York State introduced mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years to life imprisonment for possession of more than four ounces (112g) of a hard drug. The most famous mandatory sentence is the “3 Strikes and You’re Out” law that has been implemented in many countries since the 1990s. This has caused a huge increase in drug users being jailed for lengthy periods - usually 25 years to life. You know something is greatly amiss when being caught 3 times for drug possession can send you to jail for life or when small time user/dealers are imprisoned for longer than violent criminals.

Dealer Who 'Hated' His Heroin Addiction Jailed

By Staff Reporter

Herald Express

A "SMALL-SCALE" heroin dealer who sold £10 wraps to undercover police officers has been sent to jail for five years and eight months.

John Birchall, 45, of Morgan Avenue, Torquay, "hated" his addiction to heroin but found he could not survive without it, Exeter Crown Court was told.

He pleaded guilty on a previous occasion to five counts of supplying and intending to supply the Class A drug to undercover officers in May.

Judge Barry Cotter said he had no choice but to impose a minimum seven-year term, minus credit for a guilty plea, as it was the third time Birchall had been convicted for a supply offence.

The judge said: "It inevitably has to be a custodial sentence."

Prosecutor Emily Pitts said Birchall had been caught as part of a police sting operation.

Two undercover officers made inquiries on the street about heroin and Birchall, known as "Scouse John", was identified as a man who could "sort them out".

Three wraps containing £10 of heroin were supplied to the officers on separate occasions. Each wrap contained 0.1 grams of the drug.

Three more wraps, weighing 0.5 grams, were sold on another occasion. A further wrap, which turned out to be ibuprofen, was sold in a fifth deal.

Anne Bellchambers, in mitigation, said Birchall has been showing improved signs of dealing with his addiction.

She added: "He says he's been taking drugs since he was 14. He hates it but it leads him back into this sort of offending every time.

"It is small-scale supply with little or no profit — under £200 for these deals."

Judge Cotter said his hands were tied about what sentence to impose considering his past offences.

"The reality of the matter is that after an undercover police operation, you have been convicted of a third drug trafficking offence.

"That means I have to impose a particular sentence."

The judge added: "The brutal reality is that society has taken a view of those that continue to be involved in drug trafficking that if you persistently get involved in such conduct, you face a long custodial sentence."

He said he hoped Birchall would "still have the motivation" to quit drugs when he got out.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of supplying the Class A drug, one of being concerned in its supply and one of offering to supply the drug.

He was given a total sentence of 68 months.

Related Articles

Does A Loss Of Plasticity Of The Brain Lead To Addiction?

Drug Addicts Are Not To Blame For Their Plight

All About Addiction

Bonjour!

Medical Heroin Found Effective for Treatment-Refractory Opioid Addiction

Stop Repeating Yourselves ... You’re Wrong

How many times do we have to witness and ultimately pay for this ridiculous attempt to please an ignorant public, boofhead politicians and the moral police? Once again, at The Big Day Out, police caught only a small percentage of attendees with drugs while thousands got through. There were dozens of officers, sniffer hounds and public searches all meant to deter drugs from entering the festival. It happens all too often now with the costs mounting up and the shock value decreasing significantly.

Year after year we repeat the same warnings before the event starts, but every year there are still people who stupidly try to get past us and fail
-Superintendent Rod Smith

Why do the police keep doing the same thing, over and over, but expect a different result? According to many, Albert Einstein made a similar observation and claimed it is a sign of insanity. Repeating the same flawed strategy again and again but somehow expecting the latest result to miraculously be different. You get the drift here. The police keep giving out dire warnings that anyone bringing in drugs to a music festival like The Big Day Out, will be caught and dealt with harshly by the courts. Each year though, only a few people get caught. Most are given a caution while thousands simply bypass the sniffer dogs and continue on like the police never existed. This is repeated for each music festival in every state. Insanity? ... or just another fault with the prohibitionist model for dealing with drugs? It doesn’t take a genius like Einstein to work this out and in fact it didn’t. The cliché was actually coined by novelist, Rita Mae Brown.

Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results
-Rita Mae Brown, Sudden Death (Bantam Books, New York, 1983), p. 68

Not only do the police re-enact the same old strategy but they try to turn it around and put it on the people who attend these festivals. This gets to the crux of the futile approach taken by our government on drug control. We are historically consumers of drugs and we are always going to partake especially young people at a music festival. Whether the constabulary are there or not, drugs are going to be smuggled in and unless every single person, including the staff, the musicians and the police themselves are stripped searched, there will be plenty to go around. That olden but golden observation becomes apparent once more - if we can’t stop drugs getting into prison, how are we going to stop drugs getting into ... the Sydney show grounds, the Melbourne show grounds etc.

A total of 381 people were arrested, with police laying 104 drug possession charges, 12 drug supply charges, six assault charges and one malicious damage charge. Police also issued nine cannabis cautions, ejected 11 drunk people and caught 18 people trying to jump the fence into the venue.
-(AAP) PerthNow

It’s becoming all too common for the police to join the chorus of crooked politicians and agenda driven anti-drug zealots pushing out fear, exaggerated harms and lies. Droning on about “no drug is a safe drug” or “we’re putting drug dealers and drug users on alert ... we will catch you!”, might keep those “crooked politicians and agenda driven anti-drug zealots” happy but it’s not really productive. Like so much of the typical anti-drug rhetoric from the media and politicians, messages from the police are often produced just to please converts of the drug war or exploitable parents who have already been paralysed with fear. Think about the hundreds of thousands who use ecstasy, speed, cannabis etc. when they go out or on special occasions. Most of them have never had a problem with their drug taking or even seen any lasting negative effect. They have undoubtedly seen booze cause some major upsets but rarely does the same happen with recreational drugs. In fact, I’d dare say it’s the opposite and they have an absolutely cracker of a night. These are the supposed targets of these anti-drug messages but with the constant stream of dire warnings never coming to fruition, the message fails to make an impact. The truth is, and it’s a hard truth ... recreational drugs are taken so often because they are enjoyable, exciting and exhilarating with very little downside. You don’t hear this mentioned very much.

There is this idea with some young people that taking drugs enhances their day out, in reality, they are putting their lives at risk by taking illegal drugs sold by people out to make a quick buck.

They might think this is just an ecstasy pill, but as police members, too often we see the tragic effect of these foolish decisions.

Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a safe party drug.

[...]

No overdoses were recorded among the 10,500 people that attended the event
-Detective Inspector Mark Zervaas - (AAP) The HeraldSun

Yep, you read that right. After all the dire warnings, his last reported comment was, “No overdoses were recorded among the 10,500 people that attended the event”. And we wonder why these messages are over looked by the target audience as just more anti-drug babble.

Apart from being totally pointless, the attempt to stop drugs entering The Big Day Out raises a bigger issue. Why is such a dangerous drug like alcohol allowed to flow freely whilst so much effort is put into stopping safer drugs like cannabis, LSD and ecstasy? This elephant-in-the-room just keeps eluding us over and over as the anti-drug zealots come up with new, fanciful arguments over and over. Remember the constant grind about dope being a gateway drug? That took 40 years of repeated research proving it a myth. Then cannabis supposedly caused all sorts of madness including psychosis, schizophrenia and amotivational syndrome. After numerous studies, they too was finally narrowed down to effect only a tiny group of people with amotivational syndrome being a complete furfie. Since then, cannabis has been blamed for causing testicular cancer, lung cancer, making us sterile, changing personalities and being anti-social. They too are loosing out to science and research which means the anti-drug brigade will have to devise new symptoms of cannabis use to scare the public.

But it’s ecstasy(MDMA) that’s getting the fear treatment at the moment. It wasn’t too long ago that ecstasy was touted as the new drug scourge crippling society. Warnings of massive depression, holes in the brain as seen in CT scans and of course addiction ... all after even one pill. The hype was so intense that the anti-methadone campaign in the US, One Pill Can Kill was mistakenly taken up by anti-ecstasy groups, the police and local nutters.

Ecstasy was perfectly legal until it hit the dance scene in the US. The DEA in spectacular form, ignored a scientific court ruling and rushed through an emergency law to class it as a schedule I drug. This put an end to promising research into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other psychological problems. It seemed that too many young(and old) Americans were just having too much fun for the DEA. But it was a Newsweek article that put MDMA on the most feared list in the US. Newsweek cited flawed research that just one pill could create “holes” in the brain and they provided a CT scan to prove it. It was later revealed that the test subject monkeys had been injected with pure methamphetamine instead of MDMA and the hole in the brain scans really meant nothing. But the damage had been done. Much to the delight of anti-drug crusaders, ecstasy was now seen as a killer. It took over 2 decades of overseas research to eat away at the myths surrounding ecstasy and only now is the real truth coming out. Not addictive, very few deaths, very few problems, statistically safer than riding a horse.

Det-Supt Charlie Carver, of the Serious and Organised Crime Squad, said many seized ecstasy pills contained harmful chemicals such as chalk and washing powder.
-The Sunday Times 

The latest strategy by the anti-drug nutters is not aimed at MDMA itself but the contaminants that are mixed in by manufacturers to extend their product. You have probably read about ecstasy being be cut with glass, rat poison, cleaning agents, heroin etc. The reality is that ecstasy is now being cut more than ever but usually with other mind altering drugs like PMA, Mephedrone, caffeine and ketamine. As far as I know, the claims of glass, heroin and poisons being included in ecstasy pills are myths.

Ecstasy has never been cheaper or more dangerous in Perth, a major new study reveals.
 -The Sunday Times 

Ironically, it’s the drug laws themselves that present the most danger. An unregulated industry(prohibition) breeds crime and a black market where there is no age restrictions, health guidelines or quality control. To top it off, the federal and state governments won’t allow doctors to run pill testing booths at music festivals or raves. This leaves users at the mercy of criminals and what they decide goes in the mix. If you have a complaint, don’t ring The Office of Fair Trading or contact a consumer rights group. The illicit drug industry handles complaints in their own special way - usually with intimidation and violence.

If we look to the club scene in London for setting the trends here in Australia, we should be worried. As MDMA is becoming scarce in London, most ecstasy pills are being filled with steroids, caffeine and mephedrone, a drug we know very little about. This has caused the arrest rate for possession of MDMA to drop significantly in London over the last few year. From 1,197 in 2006 to 773 in 2008. 2009 is looking to be less than 500. This is not a case of drug manufacturers trying to extend their profits but because of a crack down on MDMA precursors by the authorities`. China is now the sole manufacturer of the main precursor for MDMA with exports coming from only 2 countries. They are all heavily regulated and monitored with less than 5 litres in total being sold in 2008 and 2009.

Our philosophy is that we don’t want people to die in order to learn a lesson
 -Students for Sensible Drug Policy

This might keep the AFP, DEA and other drug enforcement agencies happy but as usual, their mindless obsession and limited thinking is killing people. In other words, cracking down on the relatively safe drug MDMA, has caused a surge in PMA, mephedrone, BZP, GHB and other more harmful drugs. Why are anti-drug agencies and groups so inept with logic? They think that if you simply make it harder to get a certain drug then users will just stop taking all drugs? Or when a certain area is targeted by the police - drug users just don’t give up and the dealers quit to get legitimate jobs. The drug scene simply moves somewhere else. Haven’t they ever heard of the Balloon Effect? - squeeze one end and a bulge appears somewhere else.


Insanity
So when will this farce stop? We have silly, ignorant politicians making all sorts of comical statements mixed in with deceitful politicians blatantly lying for some selfish agenda. Giving their support, are the moral crusaders who are mostly happy clappers from the religious right or the new breed of racist, Howard loving, pro-Israel, Tim Blair arse licking neo-conservatives. And in case you still have missed it, we have the sensational and heavily biased Murdoch media pumping out myths, lies and inane opinion pieces designed to brainwash a susceptible public.

Anyone with a hint of intelligence should be able to see the massive flaws in the current system. For example, why do we still have a major drug problem after 50 years of being “Tough on Drugs”? Why is alcohol still legal when it kills 10 times the number of people who die from all illicit drugs combined? Where are the masses of drug induced mental health patients? Why are there still so many drugs available when every week we hear that a new bust was supposed to greatly reduce drug supply?

Where is the common sense and pragmatism? Why do we spend billions on stopping drug supplies but drugs are now easier to obtain than ever before? Why do we keep rolling out the same expensive “Tough on Drugs” strategy when it never meets it’s targets? Why aren’t politicians caught out by the media for lying when they make brash, non-truthful statements? Most anti-drug claims by politicians are simply lies with no scientific evidence but for some reason, opposing political parties don’t just let it slide by but usually try to out do them. This childish banter of “I’m tougher on drugs than you” is purely political and only exacerbates the societal damage already inflicted. And the damage is real, costing many lives and causing incredible carnage. Why is this allowed to continue without any real scrutiny from the media?

While advances in science and medicine bound along exponentially, the approach to drug use lingers in the dark ages. Keeping the public ignorant and fearful of drugs is the prime objective for politicians because it’s a vote winner. That would change if the public were more aware of the facts but with decades of propaganda, myths and fear being forced on them, they don’t have hope. It’s spooky to think that just 10-20 minutes on the intertubes would expose a 100 years of misinformation and lies with the truth there for anyone who cares to find out.

Police Arrest More Than 300 People At Big Day Out
(AAP) PerthNow
January 2010

MORE than 300 people were arrested over the two-day Big Day Out music festival in Sydney, with one person caught with 24 ecstasy tablets, police said today.

Police, including officers from the Dog Squad and Commuter Crime unit, targeted drug and alcohol-related crime and anti-social behaviour at the festival in Homebush on Friday and Saturday.

A total of 381 people were arrested, with police laying 104 drug possession charges, 12 drug supply charges, six assault charges and one malicious damage charge.

Police also issued nine cannabis cautions, ejected 11 drunk people and caught 18 people trying to jump the fence into the venue.

Ambulance officers were also kept busy, with 1587 people treated by St John Ambulance volunteers over both days, while 36 patients were taken to hospital.

Many of those revellers were treated for dehydration, as temperatures climbed into the 40's on both days.

Drugs seized during the police operation included cannabis, ecstasy, ice, LSD, cocaine and amphetamines.

"One person was found entering the venue allegedly in possession of 24 ecstasy tablets," police said in a statement.

Superintendent Rod Smith said most festival-goers enjoyed themselves responsibly, but some people still hadn't got the message.

"Year after year we repeat the same warnings before the event starts, but every year there are still people who stupidly try to get past us and fail," Supt Smith said in a statement.

"The results also show that anti-social behaviour won't be tolerated, and those charged over the last two days will have to face the consequences at court."

40,000 Users Quit to Prevent One Case of Schizophrenia

0.0025% - That’s the chances of preventing one single case of schizophrenia when an average user ceases using cannabis. In other words, you would have to stop 40,000 average cannabis users to prevent one case of schizophrenia. For heavy users, it would require 7,800 of them to stop using cannabis to prevent one case of schizophrenia. That’s a rate of 0.013%. These are the latest findings from scientists in the UK.

Excuse my average intelligence and lack of science degree but shouldn’t facts like this remove the consideration of schizophrenia in determining drug policies regarding cannabis? Can the cannabis debate now exclude schizophrenia? Will governments and anti-drug crusaders suddenly drop their key argument against cannabis in light of the growing evidence? Or will this study simply be ignored as they hang on to public ignorance, parental fear and tenuous links that served them so well in the past? If we use history as a guide, the anti-cannabis zealots will ignore this new evidence for as long as possible and continue to skirt around the important issues. This will suit the government just fine considering we still have some politicians quoting that old, debunked Gateway Theory as a reason why they are going to tighten cannabis laws.

The chances are that you will not read about this result in any major newspaper or media outlet. It was only a few months ago that Keele university in the UK concluded that whilst cannabis use had increased by about 400% since the 1980s, cases of mental health disorders had not increased as well but actually decreased slightly. You may not remember this news because it was not reported by Australia’s MSM or by any major international media outlet that I noticed. No wonder the public is so ignorant about drugs when our major media organisations do not publish any information that might upset the anti-drug bandwagon. Add to that the reluctance of our politicians to use these findings in their policies and instead droning on with anti-drug rhetoric from the 80s.

New Study Suggests Minimal Relationship Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia or Psychosis
physorg.com
October 2009

Last year the UK government reclassified cannabis from a class C to a class B drug, partly out of concerns that cannabis, especially the more potent varieties, may increase the risk of schizophrenia in young people. But the evidence for the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia or psychosis remains controversial. A new study has determined that it may be necessary to stop thousands of cannabis users in order to prevent a single case of schizophrenia.

Scientists from Bristol, Cambridge and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine took the latest information on numbers of cannabis users, the risk of developing schizophrenia, and the risk that cannabis use causes schizophrenia to estimate how many cannabis users may need to be stopped to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

The study found it would be necessary to stop 2800 heavy cannabis users in young men and over 5000 heavy cannabis users in young women to prevent a single case of schizophrenia. Among light cannabis users, those numbers rise to over 10,000 young men and nearly 30,000 young women to prevent one case of schizophrenia.

That's just part of the story. Interventions to prevent cannabis use typically do not succeed for every person who is treated. Depending on how effective an intervention is at preventing cannabis use, it would be necessary to treat even higher numbers of users to achieve the thousands of successful results necessary to prevent a very few cases of schizophrenia.

Matt Hickman, one of the authors of the report published last week in the scholarly journal Addiction, said that "preventing cannabis use is important for many reasons - including reducing tobacco and drug dependence and improving school performance. But our evidence suggests that focusing on schizophrenia may have been misguided. Our research cannot resolve the question whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but does show that many people need to give up cannabis in order to have an impact on the number of people with schizophrenia. The likely impact of re-classifying cannabis in the UK on schizophrenia or psychosis incidence is very uncertain."

Calvina Fay Lies Again

Recently, Calvina Fay, Executive Director of Drug Free America Foundation(DFAF) appeared twice on Fox News in the US, debating the proposal to legalise cannabis in California. When viewing both appearances consecutively, some interesting factors unravel before your eyes. Although the first debate exposes most of her claims as false, she happily repeats them again for her second appearance 5 days later. This raises some serious issues of ethics and honesty. Calvina Fay lied and although it was pointed out to her, she repeated the lies less than a week later whilst debating the same issues on the same TV network. Why would a major TV network like Fox News allow Fay to reappear in a TV debate after she had blatantly lied in her first appearance? Did Fox News even bother to check her claims? But why would they? It’s not like Fox News are renown for their integrity or truthfulness. What about Fay? She represents America’s largest anti-drug group, Drug Free America Foundation(DFAF) and her fallacious comments surely must worry them? Reading through their website, it appears that the lies and misinformation put forward by Fay are also the official stance of DFAF. To find out more about DFAF and how they actually started out as a cult called Straight, Inc., go to The Straights website.


Calvina Fay on Fox News - RE: MPP's Ad to Legalize and Tax Marijuana Bruce Mirken. (08/07/2009)



Lies and Deceptions:

• Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol
• Taxing marijuana would not bring in at least a $billion dollars in tax revenue
• The tax revenue would not offset the health costs (repeating that it costs $44 billion for substance abuse and not explaining that’s for all drugs including alcohol)
• Marijuana is a Gateway Drug
• Marijuana is “extremely linked to schizophrenia and mental illnesses”
• People don’t drink alcohol to get drunk but every recreational user smokes marijuana only to get high

"Crisis in California" - Calvina Fay Debates Rob Kampia (13/07/2009)



Lies and Deceptions:

• Taxing marijuana would not bring in at least a $billion dollars in tax revenue
• The tax revenue would not offset the health costs (repeating that it costs $44 billion for substance abuse and not explaining that’s for all drugs including alcohol)
• Prohibition hasn’t failed
• Organised crime would not be affected
• Make it easier for organised crime to sell drugs
• Citing child abuse and children in foster care as a cause of drugs without separating marijuana as the cause.
• People don’t drink alcohol to get drunk but every recreational user smokes marijuana only to get high

THE MYTHS VS THE FACTS

Many people believe the myths that were put forward by Calvina Fay, are facts. And why wouldn’t they? Governments all over the world have been pushing these myths for decades and a willing media has played along with sensational headlines and extreme stories of drug related drama, scaring parents into needlessly sending their teens to a drug treatment program. But after nearly 40 years of increasing drug problems and no decrease in drug use, questions are being asked about the effectiveness of the "War on Drugs". As the years roll by, there are more and more people being added to the list of those who have experienced drugs but the major problems they had constantly been told about were not coming to fruition. Like all long held beliefs based on myths and lies, science, research and reality are their nemesis. The problem is that anti-drug warriors are fanatical zealots and will say or do anything to keep their agenda alive. This has lead to a sharp increase in junk science and targeted research in an effort to appear credible. This junk science is being combined with the old myths which is often enough to keep the fantasy alive and the masses fearful of drugs. Ironically, it is strangely similar to those often quoted warnings about Satan who uses lies mixed in with the truth to deceive us.

Unfortunately for DFAF and other professional weirdos, technology gave us the internet. Instead of relying on the MSM to give us information, we can track down the truth in minutes. Every single point that Calvina Fay raised in the debates were wrong and if you had any doubt, the truth was available in your spare bedroom via a computer screen and a internet connection. This has changed everything and one has to wonder how long the anti-drug warriors can continue their campaign of deceit.


Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol

• Marijuana is not physically addictive.
• Number of alcohol-induced deaths(2006) in the US, excluding accidents and homicides: 22,073. Marijuana - none.
• Alcohol is involved in 40% of US traffic deaths.
• Alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs, and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect can lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a recorded case of marijuana overdose.

-Safer Choice

Taxing marijuana would not bring in at least a $billion dollars in tax revenue
What would you choose to be more qualified to predict tax revenue? A financial report by tax experts, accountants and economists or the opinion of a known liar, propagandist and zealot? Bad news if you chose the second option, most people will trust the financial report. Poor Calvina. Scary predictions and public fear will only get you so far.

A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials. The State Board of Equalization report estimates marijuana retail sales would bring $990 million from a $50-per-ounce fee and $392 million in sales taxes.
-CBS News

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale.
-Milton Friedman: Legalize It!

Marijuana is a Gateway Drug
Although marijuana can be a gateway drug, it is not because of the factors argued by Calvina Fay. Her beliefs are that it’s the pharmacological qualities of marijuana that cause users to progress to hard drugs. She believes in the fairy tale that dope smokers want to try something harder so if they try dope first, they will naturally progress to heroin or cocaine. The reason why marijuana might be a gateway drug is purely because of prohibition that force all drug users underground where users of soft drugs mix with users and dealers of hard drugs.

Instead it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug. In other words, the people who support prohibition are using the bad effects of prohibition as justification for prohibition. The conclusion of all the research is that we have a "gateway drug policy". It is the laws that create the problem.
-US Institute of Medicine on Medical Marijuana

The popular gateway theory or “Stepping Stone” analogy was created in 1937 by Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in a desperate attempt to save face. Since then, nearly every major scientific study has debunked his gateway theory.

First, there is no drug that will magically give you a craving for other drugs you have never had. That is a belief in witchcraft, not science.

Hemp was George Washington's primary crop, and a secondary crop for Thomas Jefferson, so hemp has been around in America for a long time, without apparently causing much destruction in society. Each sailing ship carried several tons of hemp in its rope and sails, so cultivation of hemp was a major industry. Even though cannabis was widely grown, there were no allegations that it led to harder drugs.

In 1910, they believed that the certain steppingstone to opiate addiction was "eating Mexicanized food". The fundamental idea comes from America's puritanical history. It is the idea that pleasure is sinful, and small pleasures lead to cravings for larger pleasures. In this example, those who crave spicy food will inevitably crave larger pleasures, such as opium.

In the 1920s, some states outlawed marijuana because of the belief that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - just the opposite of the modern myth.

Cannabis had been widely known and used in many medicinal compounds for hundreds of years, so there was ample evidence in the 1930s to know whether there was a connection between marijuana and harder drugs.

In 1937, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, testified before Congress that there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin.

[...]

The reason marijuana had to be outlawed, he said, was because it caused insanity, criminality, and death. One example he gave was of two young lovers who became so crazed after smoking a joint that they eloped and got married. Marijuana causes people to become so crazy that they get married. The other reasons he gave were no more sensible. The hemp industry representatives who testified were uniformly surprised and mystified to hear that a dangerous drug could be made from this widespread and common crop. The American Medical Association testified that they knew of no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug.

In 1944, the La Guardia Committee Report on Marihuana confirmed Mr. Anslinger's statement -- there was no connection at all between marijuana and heroin.

In 1951, the story changed. Harry Anslinger was testifying for the Boggs Act about why he needed more money and men to enforce the marijuana laws. Just before he testified, the head of the Federal addiction research program testified that they knew for certain that all of the reasons that had been given for outlawing marijuana in 1937 were entirely bogus. They knew for certain that marijuana did not cause insanity, criminality and death. Anslinger was left with no reason for tougher laws so he made up -- on the spot, with not a shred of evidence -- the assertion that marijuana is the certain stepping stone to heroin addiction. He directly contradicted his own testimony from 1937. It has been the basis of US marijuana policy ever since.

Since that time, the Federal drug enforcement officials have tried to support this myth with the idea that most heroin addicts started with marijuana, and statistics which seem to show that marijuana users are more likely to have used cocaine. The first assertion would get a failing grade in any freshman Logic class. The second can be explained by the fact that people who engage in one risk-taking behavior are likely to engage in other risk-taking behaviors. It, too, would earn a failing grade in freshman Logic.

In 1970, the Canadian Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin.

In 1972, the US Government did their largest study ever of the subject, and found no connection between marijuana and heroin. This was also the conclusion of the largest study ever done by Consumers Union, published the same year.

Every major study of the marijuana laws in the last 100 years has concluded that the only connection between marijuana and heroin is that they are both prohibited and, therefore, sold in the same black market.

The most recent study of the subject was the report of the US Institute of Medicine on medical marijuana. They reported:

Instead it is the legal status of marijuana that makes it a gateway drug.

In other words, the people who support prohibition are using the bad effects of prohibition as justification for prohibition. The conclusion of all the research is that we have a "gateway drug policy". It is the laws that create the problem.

-Schaffer Library of Drug Policy: How did the marijuana gateway myth get started?

• Rand study casts doubt on claims that marijuana acts as "gateway" to the use of cocaine and heroin.
• Marijuana use per se not a 'gateway' to illicit drug use, study says

Marijuana is “extremely linked to schizophrenia and mental illnesses”
This is by far, the most contentious issue with cannabis but one fact remains - although drug use has doubled many times over since the 1970s, cases of mental illness has not increased and even declined slightly. If cannabis was such a important factor in causing long term mental illnesses such as psychosis and schizophrenia, the 190 million reported cannabis smokers would require thousands and thousands of special new hospitals just to deal with them. The “ticking time-bomb” apocalypse that was promised so many times in the 80s and 90s has fizzled out as cannabis smokers from over the last 3 decades are still not filling up our institutions.

• Cannabis, Schizophrenia and Psychosis - Myth Finally Proven
• After Further Review, Smoking Pot Doesn't Make You Crazy
• Cannabis and Mental Illness - the Keele Study

People don’t drink alcohol to get drunk but every recreational user smokes marijuana to get high
A great example of how terminology can obscure the facts - drunk versus high. Just one drink can cause a mood altering effect and so can one puff or one cone of marijuana. Going to a bar for a quick drink with friends might fit the analogy that “people don’t drink to get drunk” but one standard drink usually does have some mild pleasant effect. And how often is just one drink consumed? A more appropriate analogy might be, “people don’t drink alcohol to get drunk ... they drink to feel the effect of alcohol”. Whether they are conscious of this is another issue. A common response might be, “I just want to relax” or “ I want to wind down” which really says, “I want to feel the mood altering effects of alcohol”. Drinkers have the choice to limit their intake to suit the desired effect. The same goes for drug takers, especially pot smokers. Someone who wants to “wind down” or relax after work will only use enough cannabis to achieve the desired effect. Calvina Fay’s argument suggests that there is no low level of being high, just “stoned” or that cannabis smokers have no control over the degree of being high. Of course, this is just crap.

Alcohol Facts:

• If one takes one drink in an hour the alcohol concentration in the blood is .02% – .04% and the physical/psychological effects are: No overt effect, slight mood elevation.
• If one takes two drinks in an hour the alcohol concentration in the blood is .05% – .07% and the physical/psychological effects are: Warm relaxed feelings, slight decrease in reaction time and muscle coordination.
• If one takes three drinks in an hour the alcohol concentration in the blood is .08% – .11% and the physical/psychological effects are: Euphoria, balance, speech, & hearing slightly impaired. Increased confidence; decreased coordination.

From a drink/drug driving study:

In other words, people who use cannabis may be more aware of the fact that they're impaired after they have used, compared with people who drink alcohol and who do not feel impaired after just a drink or two, even though their driving ability has been lessened. Any use of a controlled substance, even just one beer or other social drinking, can impair driving ability for a short time afterward even though an individual may not perceive themselves as impaired.
-Drug War Distortions

Prohibition hasn’t failed
It seems that most people don’t agree with Calvina Fay. According to a 2008 Zogby Poll just prior to the last US election, 76% of likely voters believe the War on Drugs is failing. So do many opinion writers in the major media outlets throughout the US.

• The Economist: How to Stop the Drug Wars (Prohibition has failed; legalisation is the least bad solution)
• Cato: 100 Years of Failed Drug Prohibition
• Boston Globe: The Solution to the Failed Drug War
• San Francisco Chronicles: State's War on Drugs a 100-Year-Old Bust
• New York Times: Drugs Won the War
• Washington Post: Clinton: U.S. Drug Policies Failed, Fueled Mexico's Drug War

Organised crime would not be affected / Make it easier for organised crime to sell drugs
Nearly every single analysis of the "War on Drugs" and drug prohibition acknowledges that the main problem is organised crime. Even the head of UNGASS, Antonio Marie Costa said in the latest World Drug Report that organised crime and a black market were the side effects of current prohibition policies. In fact, I have never seen the suggestion before that organised crime wouldn’t be effected by removing prohibition let alone benefit from it. Where does Calvina Fay get her information from?


The tax revenue would not offset the health costs
As pointed out by both Rob Kampia and Bruce Mirken, the $44 billion figure that Fay keeps bringing up includes all drugs, not just cannabis. Bruce explained that it was mostly alcohol that made up the $44 billion amount. I don’t have the exact figures but logic tells me that the cost of marijuana to the health system isn’t very much. This might be seen as a cop out but frankly I’m sick of proving Calvina Fay wrong. Anyway, what about the savings from other factors e.g. no court for possession means huge savings, the police resources saved, the decreasing prison population, the cost of parole etc. Whatever ... bored now.