Has Paul Sheehan Written the Worst Article Ever?

We would all be better off without those
 pinko, poofter, druggy mongrels!

I have just read, what could be considered by some, the worse article ever written.

I knew something was adrift when the author, Paul Sheehan started slamming the movie, Animal Kingdom. I thought this would be his kind of movie, you know with cops killing crims, and all but it seems, Sheehan loves The King’s Speech instead. Another magnificent film, all the same.

We all know Sheehan is anti-labor and a raving right-wing apologist and his article was written as expected. But it was his attack on the Kings Cross Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) that left me cold. Sheehan, like most crazy ultra conservatives hates junkies. According to him, they are the “most reckless and self-indulgent people in society” and MSIC just allows them to “experiment” with high doses of heroin because MSIC staff will revive them if they overdose.

If you feel like you’ve heard this before, you are right. Anti-drug superhero and Drug Free Australia (DFA) secretary, Gary Christian has spent over four years pushing this theory and even produced a paper on the subject titled A Case for Closure. Sadly for Gary, only nuttters like Sheehan take it seriously while actual experts and professionals simply ignore it. It’s also interesting to note that Sheehan’s detailed research couldn’t even produce the correct spelling for Gary Christian’s name.

Not surprisingly, Gary Christian couldn’t subdue his excitement and posted a quote from the article to the the ADCA email forum. And equally not surprising, his post was instantly rejected by some respected ADCA email forum subscribers. In case you didn’t know, the ADCA email forum is the official bulletin board for AOD professionals, hosted by The Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia(ADCA).

Start by telling the truth not lying. The funds for the MSIC do NOT come from the public - they come from proceeds of crime.

Sheehan's article fed by Christian is the worst piece of mistruth and claptrap I have ever seen. He manages to out-do Ackerman, Bolt and Devine.

That is saying something.

I support the injecting room - so do the majority of the family members that I talk to.

--Tony Trimingham: Chief Executive Officer of Family Drug Support / ANCD Member

Whether Sheehan was simply writing about his favourite subject, the Labor Party or spewing out his hate for drug addicts is unclear. Like Piers Akerman from the Daily Telegraph, Sheehan’s main focus is slamming the Labor Party, especially the NSW branch. And like Piers Akerhead, there is an assumption that colourful writing and repeating the same old criticism over and over will magically persuade the readers that they have a valid point.

In the Cross, the core of the rot is sponsored by the NSW government itself. It is the blandly named Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, conveniently located on Darlinghurst Road opposite the entrance to Kings Cross railway station. Never have so many lies been fed to the public in support of this policy quagmire.
--Paul Sheehan: A state's addiction to crime(Sydney Morning Herald)

What is clear though, is that Sheehan has swallowed the Drug Free Australia (DFA) bait … hook, line and sinker.

One of the leading figures behind Drug Free Australia, Gary Christiansen, told me: ''The number of overdoses in the [Kings Cross] facility have been a staggering 35 to 42 times higher than the rate of overdose experienced by clients [drug-users] before they registered to use the room. Testimony by former clients in the NSW Hansard indicates that the overdose numbers are so high because clients experiment with higher doses of heroin and poly-drug cocktails, using the safety of the room as a guarantee.''

--Paul Sheehan: A state's addiction to crime(Sydney Morning Herald)

I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but where do we draw the line? I suggest that popular media outlets should be forced to not publish material that blatantly deceives the audience. In other words, they can not lie, regardless of whether it’s an opinion piece or not. You would think that after Miranda Devine’s reign of terror on rational thinking, the Sydney Morning Herald would be keen to rid themselves of extreme, right wing rantings. Especially when a writer ignores the bulk of scientific evidence and instead relies on the rejected research and ramblings of an infamous anti-drug zealot.

The argument justifying the centre is that has cleaned up the drug trade and saved ''hundreds'' of lives. This is propaganda worthy of North Korea. The reality is the opposite. The centre is directly responsible for hundreds of drug overdoses. It has created an environment where the most reckless and self-indulgent people in society - junkies - know they will be bailed out of their own risks.

The result is stratospheric rates of drug overdoses and interventions, which are then counted as lives saved. This is the basis on which more than $25 million in public funding has been requested and justified by the drug-legalisation lobby. Anyone interested in the non-North Korean view of this social experiment can find a blistering, highly detailed counter-view on the website of Drug Free Australia.
--Paul Sheehan: A state's addiction to crime(Sydney Morning Herald)

North Korea? Social experiment? $25 million in public funding? Colourful … yes. Correct … no. As Tony Trimingham pointed out, MSIC is funded from proceeds of crime not by the tax payer. And why is saving hundreds of lives called propaganda? Instead of using the actual data collected by MSIC, Gary Christian starts with some highly contentious and indeterminable assumptions then multiplies them out over eight years to get an even more unreliable result. This is the basis for his argument - that statistically MSIC has only saved 4 lives - to challenge Australia’s leading researchers and experts. It’s been pointed out many times previously to Christian that multiplying uncertainties will just magnify any error and produce highly dubious results. What about those junkies who Sheehan describes as the “most reckless and self-indulgent people in society”? They’re not to be trusted in one paragraph but by the next, their testimony is suddenly worthy enough for Sheehan to include in his article. Hypocrisy at it’s best. But no right wing slur on harm minimisation is complete without the mandatory mention of being a “social experiment”. Yes, according to Sheehan, anything that doesn’t rely on tough law enforcement or considers the best interests of drug users, is a social experiment or even worse, morally wrong.

The association is merely part of a state-funded, ideologically driven lobby that seeks to legalise hard drugs, portray criminals as victims and deny the reality that the heroin subculture is fundamentally parasitic, cynical and self-absorbed

--Paul Sheehan: Life Is Cheap With Our Own Heroin Chic(Sydney Morning Herald)

Apart from despising drug users, Paul Sheehan also dislikes science and research when they don’t fit in with his ideology. He is probably not the best choice then when it comes to writing about scientific issues. You might remember not too long ago that Sheehan was proclaiming the wonders of a magical water source that cured rheumatoid arthritis and other major illnesses. He even provided an address to a warehouse where people could go and buy it. As it turns out, the mystical water was … well, just water. Add to the list, climate change denial, his claim that millions have lost their lives as a result of stopping the use of DDT and his rejection of evidence from drug experts, and you have someone who should steer clear of scientific and medical topics. Then again, this might explain why Sheehan was so drawn to Gary Christian and his reliance on junk science.

The idea that most intravenous drug users are prepared to suffer an overdose because someone is available to revive them, is ludicrous. This furphy was never even a consideration until Christian’s report. There may be a small group who take advantage of having qualified nurses on hand, armed with naloxone but they certainly don’t represent the average MSIC client. Even by Gary Christian’s standards, this leap in logic is absurd. How can only two users making the claim, out of thousands actually support the assumptions by Christian and Sheehan? Maybe someone should tell them that simply writing it in a report is not science and doesn’t make it true.

A State's Addiction To Crime

Sydney Morning Herald

Paul Sheehan

February 2011

One of the pleasures in public life today will be the Oscars, streamed live from Los Angeles at absurdly self-indulgent length. Local interest is provided by a strong Australian contingent for honours, including best picture (The King's Speech) co-produced in Australia, starring a brilliant Australian actor (Geoffrey Rush) playing an intimate to King George VI, with another brilliant Australian actor (Guy Pearce), playing another British monarch, King Edward VIII. Ironies abound.

The sentimental favourite among the Aussie nominees is Jacki Weaver, who plays a sweetly murderous grandmother in Animal Kingdom, a superbly crafted Australian drama (with Guy Pearce again) by first-time feature director David Michod. The film, which Michod also wrote, and Weaver in particular have received so many award nominations and critical acclaim that it is easy to overlook that the film has a hole in its heart.

The hole in the heart of Animal Kingdom is its script, where the drama is created by violence, not by depth or originality of the characters. It is same hole in the heart of Australian cinema generally, where the local production line of world-class actors, directors and cinematographers has never been matched by a comparable stream of world-class scripts.

This reflects the Australian film world, like the tax-subsidised Australian arts world in general, being a preachy monoculture that conforms to the safety of well-worn ruts. Animal Kingdom is no exception. The opening scene is a normal-looking suburban mother slumped on a couch. These are the first lines of dialogue:

Paramedic: ''What's she taken?''

Young man: ''Heroin.''

For the umpteenth time, an Australian film has trawled the criminal underclass for colour while portraying elements of the police as murderers with no honour code, unlike the crims they chase.

As it happens, I've been thinking a great deal about the way NSW has taken on some of the flavour of a police state. The context is the run-up to the state election. I'm wondering what the Coalition will do about the police after it wins office on March 26. In NSW, we have the worst of both worlds, where the cops and the government are tough on hundreds of thousands of non-criminals going about their daily lives, while giving a free pass to real criminals.

This dysfunction is exemplified in Kings Cross, where the NSW government is complicit in the heroin trade while, as a result of this complicity, the police have all but given up arresting junkies in the Cross.

Darlinghurst Road has become entrenched as a place where drug and alcohol abuse flourishes. Meanwhile, just down the hill, on busy New South Head Road, the police stop thousands of motorists who are causing no problems. At this checkpoint, the presumption is guilt, the selection process is random, and the probable cause is non-existent.

Checkpoints, random stops, speed cameras and speed traps. This is the real face of the NSW Police. The force has been turned into petty bureaucrats charged with gouging revenue from taxpayers, while looking the other way as the heroin traffic flourishes in plain sight. Our legal system and state bureaucracy have turned the thin blue line into a bleached corps of tax agents, social workers, stress-leave jockeys and second-job jugglers, leaving a few hard units to do hard investigations into hard crime.

Look at Kings Cross. It used to be one of Australia's most sophisticated, cosmopolitan and pleasant precincts. Now it is a bogan paradise, a cathedral to bad taste, a product of the power of the alcohol, heroin and poker machine industries that have enjoyed unprecedented power or tolerance for 16 years under the Labor patronage machine and pork factory.

In the Cross, the core of the rot is sponsored by the NSW government itself. It is the blandly named Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, conveniently located on Darlinghurst Road opposite the entrance to Kings Cross railway station. Never have so many lies been fed to the public in support of this policy quagmire.

The argument justifying the centre is that has cleaned up the drug trade and saved ''hundreds'' of lives. This is propaganda worthy of North Korea. The reality is the opposite. The centre is directly responsible for hundreds of drug overdoses. It has created an environment where the most reckless and self-indulgent people in society - junkies - know they will be bailed out of their own risks.

The result is stratospheric rates of drug overdoses and interventions, which are then counted as lives saved. This is the basis on which more than $25 million in public funding has been requested and justified by the drug-legalisation lobby. Anyone interested in the non-North Korean view of this social experiment can find a blistering, highly detailed counter-view on the website of Drug Free Australia (www.drugfree.org.au).

One of the leading figures behind Drug Free Australia, Gary Christiansen, told me: ''The number of overdoses in the [Kings Cross] facility have been a staggering 35 to 42 times higher than the rate of overdose experienced by clients [drug-users] before they registered to use the room. Testimony by former clients in the NSW Hansard indicates that the overdose numbers are so high because clients experiment with higher doses of heroin and poly-drug cocktails, using the safety of the room as a guarantee.''

As for the wider matter of dysfunctional policing, the opposition has announced that it finds the use of speed traps to be overbearing, deceptive and intrusive. Yesterday it announced it would review the entire process if elected to government. This is encouraging.

Another telling benchmark will come after March 26, when the new government decides what to do about the tax-funded heroin honeypot in the heart of Sydney.

Related Articles:

Mysteries Of The Magic Water Man

Life is cheap with our own heroin chic

The Original Story: Paul Sheehan on the effect of the water

Too good to be true - Paul Sheehan and the magic water debacle

Lawyer Marsden: Paul Sheehan’s vitriol

Paul Sheehan: Liar Or Stupid? "Islamophobia is a myth"

Questioning Christian Behaviour at Beyond 2008

Cannabis is a Hard Drug Too! - More DFA Deceit

How DFA Logic Exposed the Real Fifth Columnist

Who are Drug Free Australia (DFA)?

Sophie Mirabella - Another “Tough on Drugs” Looney Lib

They’re at it again.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Oh dear, those silly Libs. Always harping on about someone being “Soft on Drugs” or how the Howard government was so successful at fighting the drug scourge while the Rudd government is doing nothing.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Yes, I remember the success. Like the heroin epidemic that Howard proudly announced was beaten with help from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). At the time, heroin use did drop significantly in Australia and there was plenty of back patting and victory speeches. Amazingly, Howard’s “Tough on Drugs” policy was also working overseas and countries like Australia who were supplied heroin by Burma had a record drop in heroin use. Simply amazing! Several years later though, AFP head, Mick Kelty dropped a bombshell and explained that Burma and other S.E. Asia crime syndicates had switched to methamphetamines(ice) and ditched their heroin business. Oops. Just to rub it in, it was later revealed that the use of ice had been growing for the previous 5 years and peaked around the time the government announced that methamphetamines were starting to become a problem in Australia. By the time the media and government started screaming “Ice Epidemic”, methamphetamine use had already started to decline. The short story being that whilst the Howard government was busy taking credit for something they didn’t do, ice had slipped in unnoticed ... all on their watch.

Since the Rudd government took over, the “Tough on Drugs” campaign has taken a back seat while they focus on a much bigger problem called alcohol. This is driving the Libs crazy as they had previously defended the massive alcohol industry although it causes much more carnage on Australia than illicit drugs ever will. Sussan Ley, Jamie Briggs, Mathias Cormann, Colin Barnett, Christian Porter, Barry O'Farrell etc. have all had a go at the Rudd government for not being “Tough on Drugs”. Joining this groups of desperates is Sophie Mirabella, Liberal Party Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare, Women & Youth. Although Sophie Mirabella is already well known as a twat, she confirmed it by writing a piece for The Punch last week. In her article, she attacked Rudd and co. for being “Soft on Crime” highlighting how they have neglected to follow up the success of the Howard government and their “Tough on Drugs” policy. Well, here’s the thing Sophie ... “Tough on Drugs” doesn’t work. When you say “Soft on Drugs”, you mean being sensible, rational and following the facts. You mean reconsidering a failed policy that has cost millions of lives around the world. You mean breaking away from the US centric "War on Drugs" that has cursed that country into having the largest rate of drug users on the planet. Like I commented on the The Punch site - “But there’s the catch. If they really believe the propaganda they spin to the public then they are dumb as a hammer but if they are rational thinking adults and know it’s not true, then they are liars. Any guesses?”. My guess is that you know damn well what’s happening but you can’t get your head around addiction being a medical issue. You see drug use as immoral except for that most dangerous of drugs, alcohol. You think we are simply not tough enough on drug users and a worldwide concerted effort will produce a drug free world. Like most nutters from the far right, you accept druggies dying or being wrongly imprisoned as an unfortunate side effect of maintaining public morality. Yes, the quest for a perfect society that gave us Hitler, apartheid, jail for homosexuals, the over throwing of democratically elected governments, the loss of civil rights, a massive prison population, the stolen generation, rampant corruption and of course, the "War on Drugs". In your world Sophie, there’s no room for science or compassion if it interferes with conservative values.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

Mirabella’s latest rant in The Punch is straight from a neocon handbook. It’s probably called How To Win Friends And Influence People (Using Fear & Lies). Neocons believe it’s okay to lie to the public if it’s in the best interest of the country and Mirabella wants to determine what that is. Who cares if it ruins lives? Who cares if it doesn’t work? And why would Mirabella criticise the government for wanting the term Harm Reduction included in the UN’s official drug policy? It is after all, part of Harm Minimisation which is Australia’s official drug policy. The reason is simple. The US have a Zero Tolerance policy for drugs and it was them who pressured the UN not to include the term Harm Reduction. As a neocon, Sophie believes the US is the motherland spreading law& order, freedom & democracy, free markets and capitalism, Christianity, family values & moral direction. There’s no place for Harm Minimisation in a US inspired world.

The "War on Drugs" has failed miserably but there are many Australian politicians who still want Australia to adopt more of the US Zero Tolerance policy. Funny enough, we actually do base most of our drug strategies on the US model with a dash of Harm Reduction. The call for tougher drug sentencing is purely political. Why would we want more of the US Zero Tolerance policy when the US has the highest level of drug use per capita in the world? Is this the “success” we want? Do we want 1 in 37 citizens in the criminal system like the US? Do we want special armed forces shooting innocent bystanders in the crossfire with drug gangs? Do we want millions of people unable to get decent jobs or receive government aid just because they once smoked pot? This is the reality of Sophie Mirabella’s suggestions but there’s no room for such inconvenient truths when you are busy spinning the “Tough on Drugs” line.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.
-Sophie Mirabella - The Punch

On a final note, Sophie’s rant includes a classic anti-drug tactic that is rarely challenged by anyone - the reverse link. Making the connection between illicit drugs and crime is simple enough. You take something that is very popular like drugs and ban them. Huge demand creates extremely inflated prices and since some drugs are highly addictive, users have to regularly resort to crime to pay for them. Because they are banned and with so much money involved, the black market attracts organised crime who run the industry using violence and fear. This is called prohibition. For some reason, there are those who get it mixed up and say that the effect of drugs themselves cause users to delve into crime. Like a group of friends sitting around having a joint when suddenly one of them announces that she is going to become a dealer in illegal firearms. There is a good minute of silence before it sinks in. Under the influence of drugs, others soon declare their intentions for a criminal career as well. A bank robber, a credit card scammer and 2 car thieves. Incredible! But that’s drugs for you.

Tough On Crime Is An Empty Slogan For ALP
The Punch
by Sophie Mirabella
November 2009

The ability of Prime Minister Rudd and his Government to “talk tough” has never been in question. It’s the one thing Labor actually do well.

Remember that first heady year in office when they declared a war on virtually everything – from childhood obesity and whaling, to banker’s salaries, unemployment and even the global financial crisis itself?
Conveniently, the rhetoric has never had to bear resemblance to reality.

Julia Gillard talked tough during her faux stoush with the Unions, while at the same time delivering them unprecedented power and access in the workplace.

Wayne Swan solemnly warned of a “tough budget for tough times” before he delivered one of the biggest spending budgets in our nation’s history.

Kevin Rudd seriously claimed his changes to border security were “tough”, while at the same time creating a situation where the people smugglers are clearly back in business with a record number of illegal boats bobbing in Australian waters.

Heck, the rhetoric can even swing a full 360 degrees to suit the mood – declaring oneself an economic conservative one year, and writing a long treatise on the evils of capitalism the next.

No problem. Whatever suits perceived changes in the tide of public opinion. Whatever gets airplay. Or whatever suits as a distraction from other government failures.

The Prime Minister is currently “spinning” in India, where, just a few weeks back, Julia Gillard spent five days trying to reassure worried Indian families that Australia was a safe place, following violent incidents involving Indian students studying in Australia.

Ms Gillard declared that the Australian Government was tough on crime, adding: “We have zero tolerance towards any violence towards Indian students, any violence at all in our country.”

If only that was the case.

Just this week, in the Annual Report of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Prosecutor in Victoria Jeremy Rapke QC, accused the State’s judges of lenient sentencing, particularly in drug cases. In so many cases, these Judges have been appointed by Ms Gillard’s Labor colleagues.

Rapke rightly pointed out that the penalties imposed by Courts in drug cases continue to be inadequate having regard to the insidious effect drugs have on society and said that sentences should reflect “the huge public disquiet about the prevalence of drugs”.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”. So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.

At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.

When it comes to being “tough on crime”, Labor’s own policy platform also betrays them, with Chapter 7 declaring “Labor will promote the principles of restorative justice as a just and effective way to be tough on crime.”

Restorative justice? What exactly is that? A core principle in restorative justice is to “balance offender needs, victim needs and the needs of the community as well” (Bazemore and Umbreict 1995).

Note the “offenders needs” are pretty high up on that list. And that’s the sticking point.

At its best, restorative justice gives victims of crime a voice. That’s a good thing. For first offences and petty crimes it is a method of dispute resolution that can be effective if both parties enter into the process with good will.

But more and more often the principle is being applied to serious criminal behaviour.

For judges who philosophically support restorative justice that often means keeping an offender out of jail wherever possible…the theory being that they are unable to “make amends” if confined in prison.

This is an approach pretty much at odds with the “do the crime, do the time” deterrent to criminal behaviour which has long underpinned the system and reflects the sentiment of most of the Australian community.

But leniency and the philosophical belief that “offender needs” must be considered in sentencing mean we continue to see many cases where the time simply does not fit the crime. Nor does it reflect community standards and expectations.

Many Judges, like the Labor Party itself, see the principles of restorative justice as the most “just and effective” approach. That’s certainly debatable – and I don’t have the space in this column to go into all the pros and cons. But one thing restorative justice couldn’t be described as is “tough”.

So how can Labor claim to be tough on crime when their party platform says the opposite? Moreover, and perhaps more significantly given our proud history of judicial independence, Labor are appointing more and more judges who conveniently share Labor’s “go soft” beliefs.

The Victorian State Attorney General Rob Hulls is a case in point. His appointments now make up half the State’s judiciary – among them two “Lawyers for Labor”, a former Labor candidate, and four senior officials from the left-leaning “Liberty Victoria”, along with many other “activist” Judges.

Without commenting on their individual qualifications, I do question whether their collective views are representative of mainstream values. I wonder if the balance is skewed.

As a Barrister myself, I believe it’s important for the judiciary to maintain the confidence of the public by broadly reflecting the community’s concept of “justice”.

As outlined earlier, the Senior public prosecutor in Victoria also seems to think this is important.

As evidenced in some of his appointments, the Labor State Attorney General clearly does not.

Meanwhile, half a world away, our tough talking Labor Prime Minister continues to declare his Government is “tough on crime”.

Plenty of feel-good rhetoric, but reality will inevitably bite.

For some local insight into Sophie Mirabella, check out Ray Dixon’s Alpine Opinion.


Related Articles:
Sophie Mirabella, tough on crime, the war on drugs, blather about liberal softies, and a black dull Friday the 13th indee - Loon Pond
The Liberal Party on Drugs
Jamie Briggs - The MP Who Drank the Kool Aid with Lolly Water
Liberal Party Can't Shake Off Howard's Australia
The Unwinnable War On Dickheads

WA Do Not Want Tougher Cannabis Laws from 1981

An update on the proposed new cannabis laws for WA.

Although the currently elected Liberals were ecstatic and clapped loudly for Colin Barnett’s plans it seems the public are not too happy to turn back the clock on the state’s cannabis laws. An article from PerthNow has attracted a whopping 544 comments to date with 99% of readers hammering Barnett’s new policies. This is the most commented article I have ever seen on any News Ltd. website. Also it’s not one of the main newspaper sites for Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane but Perth. Murdoch’s newspapers are notoriously aimed at conservatives and red necks which explains the negative feedback usually shown towards liberal drug issues. Why then, are readers of PerthNow raising so much opposition to tougher cannabis laws?

PerthNow had a poll that asked the readers, Does WA need tougher laws governing marijuana?
Out of 2364 votes, 43% said yes, 48% said no and 8% said What day is it?

Lies, Lies and More Lies
You might want to visit the government’s website and read their media release, Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation. Beware - it contains the usual deceptive, anti-drug rhetoric that has dominated the world’s political scene for decades.

It starts with the claim that the political enemy is “Soft on Drugs”. When translated from political babble, it usually means, “smart” on drugs via an attempt to deal with the drug issue rationally and realistically. The soft-on-drugs term is dying a slow death and is still only used by those who see the public as naive enough to swallow their spin. You may recall John Howard calling everyone soft-on-drugs when they mentioned any strategy that differed to his “Tough on Drugs” mantra. Barnett concludes in his opening paragraph that the soft-on-drugs approach “has left lives ruined”. This is a lie as drug use has continued to decreased under the so called soft-on-drugs strategy. Where is the media on this? Where is the opposition disputing these claims? To the contrary, Barnett’s tough-on-drugs proposal has been shown over and over again to ruin lives . How can such a blatant lie not be picked up?

Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

A gateway drug? The only time cannabis is a gateway drug is when users are forced underground and exposed to dealers and users of hard drugs. This happens when a government doesn’t separate soft drugs from hard drugs. But this is not what he meant. Barnett is subscribing to the old myth that cannabis is a stepping stone to harder drugs. This very claim should render the whole media release as fallacious political dribble. The gateway theory has been scientifically debunked many times over and is only used by desperate anti-drug nutters who are woefully detached from the drug issue. Even hardened anti-drug warriors have mostly given up on the gateway theory which again shows up Barnett as an out-of-touch meathead who is pushing through laws based on nothing more than his own misguided views. Where is the science and evidence behind such ridiculous claims? And again, why isn’t the media and the opposition shooting this down? Barnett is flat out lying and quoting urban myths as the basis for laws that affect millions of people is outright dangerous.

What about the claims of schizophrenia. This was ruled out last year by scientists as merely the effects of cannabis mimicking the symptoms of schizophrenia. When the effects of cannabis wore off, so did the supposed schizophrenia. Psychosis was also ruled out as being caused by cannabis except for those who have a family history of metal health problems. Barnett has lied again. For such an important health related law to be passed, you would expect that some scientific evidence be provided. The problem is that the latest evidence is completely polar to Barnett’s claims and any real attempt at providing evidence would be shot down is minutes.

The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

This statement is just not acceptable from a state premier or a representative of the people. All evidence and research has shown that tough laws and penalties have never significantly deterred overall drug use in any country. Why hasn’t someone pointed out to the government that what they believe and what is true are completely different. If they really do believe this then the Barnett government need to step down now. Western Australians should not be governed by a group so obviously stupid ... and capable of such blatant lying.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS)
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN)? Just how has it failed? The main reason cited is that only 5% of those issued with a CIN attended a drug counselling course. Under Barnett’s new Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS), anyone issued a CIRS will have to attend a Cannabis Intervention Education course or face further charges. Again, a lack of understanding from the government has cannabis users earmarked as drug addicts or needing drug counselling. This is ludicrous as cannabis causes far fewer problems for users and society as does alcohol, which is legal and freely available to adults. Cannabis is not addictive and very few people end up with a dependency problem. Alcohol on the other hand is highly addictive and over a million people are classed as problem drinkers. Wouldn’t it make more sense to force those involved in alcohol related offences to be sent to counselling?

The elephant in the room is still the unanswered question - if the current policy is working why change it? Apart from the excuse that only 5% of those issued a CIN actually go to a drug counselling class, Barnett has simply said that the previous laws are soft-on-drugs. The way I see it is that it all boils down to Barnett’s personal views and modern conservative ideology. That or the South Park send up of anti-drug warriors and their simpleton approach ... drugs are bad, mmkay. There is no actual new evidence or findings to warrant these new drug laws. If anything, new strategies should be put on trial that follow the success of the current laws. The amounts seem fine at 30 grams and 2 plants and don’t need increasing but maybe we should consider legalising the 2 home grown plants for personal use. This would certainly remove many dealers and keep users away from them. There’s a whole range of ideas that could be implemented using proper, scientific monitoring to find the right balance between public acceptability and the right to use a relatively safe drug. The benefits would include the reduction of drug dealers, crime and unnecessary criminal records.

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.
-Ministerial Media Statement from Colin Barnett - 11 October, 2009

Should we be going back to laws drafted 28 years ago? Worldwide experience has clearly shown that drug laws from the 1980s have caused societal carnage and ruined millions of lives including many preventable deaths. To ignore these facts is downright criminal and condemns many Australians to a life of misery. The 28 year old laws are steeped in ignorance and “Just Say No” drug hysteria which might appeal to Barnett and his troupe of silly old men but they should be left to history as a reminder of what not to do.

What we knew back then is a fraction of what we know today. Science and evidence based research has replaced ideology and moral panic. The many myths created back then have been debunked or laughed off and many of the policies have been the most unsuccessful ever put into law. For a current government to try and re-establish these dangerous and failed policies should send shock waves through the community. It appears that a large percentage of Western Australians understand the ramifications of such foolish actions and will undoubtedly be heard in the next election.

Sun 11 October, 2009
Liberal-National Government to overturn soft-on-drugs legislation [link]

Portfolio: Premier

New anti-cannabis laws will mark the start of the Liberal-National Government’s fight to turn around eight years of a soft-on-drugs approach by the previous Labor government which has left lives ruined.

Premier Colin Barnett today announced the Government would this week introduce legislation to repeal the Cannabis Control Act 2003 and make changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the Young Offenders Act 1994, sending a clear message that the current State Government did not endorse illicit drug use.

Mr Barnett said the cannabis-related legislation was the first in a series of steps the Government would take to send a clear anti-drugs message to the community and toughen penalties for people who broke the law through drug-related offences.

According to the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, cannabis was the most widely used illicit drug in Western Australia with an annual usage rate of 10.8 per cent.

“The Liberal-National Government is committed to tackling both the demand and supply sides of the illicit drug problem through strong law enforcement policies, education and rehabilitation,” the Premier said.

“Cannabis is not a harmless or soft drug. Research continues to show that cannabis can lead to a host of health and mental health problems including schizophrenia, and can be a gateway to harder drugs.

“The Government believes a tougher approach against drugs is necessary to send a clear message not to use drugs, but we also recognise the existence of a criminal record has a serious impact on a person’s future employment prospects. At present, once a conviction is recorded, it remains on a person’s criminal record for at least 10 years.

“Under the Government’s proposed laws, a person convicted of minor cannabis possession offences will be able to apply to have a conviction spent after three years, provided they are not convicted of further offences during that period.

“This approach ensures minor drug offenders who demonstrate they are prepared to take responsibility and rehabilitate themselves are given an opportunity to turn their lives around.”

The new cannabis-related laws will:

• prosecute the possession of more than 10 grams of cannabis. This is a reduction from the previous Labor government’s stance where prosecution only occurred when it was more than 30 grams
• result in subsequent offences for possession being prosecuted as criminal offences
• prosecute people for cultivating cannabis plants. Under the previous Labor government’s regime, people could grow two cannabis plants per person, per household without facing criminal charges
• make it illegal for cannabis smoking implements to be sold to anyone, including adults. Currently it is only an offence to sell these implements to children
• increase fines for the sale of smoking implements. The new laws will allow for fines of up to $5,000 for sale to an adult and up to $10,000 for sale to a minor. Bodies corporate will be fined equivalent to five times these amounts.

The Government will also replace the failed Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme (CIN) with the Cannabis Intervention Requirement Scheme (CIRS).

“The CIRS has a primary focus on education and takes a firm, yet compassionate, approach to people found to be in possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis,” Mr Barnett said.

“Under the new scheme, anyone caught will have no option but to attend a Cannabis Intervention education session within 28 days of the offence or face prosecution through the courts.

“Unlike the soft system we have inherited where people can be issued with infringement notices ad nauseam, juveniles will only be eligible for two notices and adults for one.

“After that they will be prosecuted for further offences.”

A person will not be eligible for a CIRS if they are caught cultivating or in possession of plants.

The new CIRS sessions will differ significantly from the current CIN scheme because:
offenders will not have the option of just paying the fine and avoiding the education session
if a person fails to attend the session they will be prosecuted.
This year, under the soft system the Liberal-National Government inherited from Labor, only five per cent of offenders actually participated in an education session.

The Premier said further anti-drug legislation would be introduced in coming months.

“The next steps will be to amend legislation to enable courts to impose a harsher sentence on dealers who sell or supply illicit drugs to children, irrespective of the location of the sale or supply,” he said.

“Further amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 will provide offences for exposing children to harm or to the danger of serious harm from the manufacture of illegal drugs, such as amphetamines, or the unlawful cultivation of illegal hydroponically-grown plants.

“The Government will also move to ban the sale of drug paraphernalia, including cocaine kits.”

The repeal of the Cannabis Control Act will reinstate the primary responsibility for cannabis cautioning under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981.

With the repeal of the Act, all registered Cannabis Infringement notices will be deemed ‘paid’ after they have been registered with the Fines Enforcement Registry for 12 months. This will allow police to destroy their cannabis stockpile which is retained for evidentiary purposes.

Premier's office: 9222 9475

Related Articles:
The Final Proof - Colin Barnett is a Dickhead
Do Dickhead Politicians Grow on Trees in WA?
Drug Bins in WA Brings Out the Nutters
The Liberal Party on Drugs
WA Liberals - Drug Policy Blues
WA Liberals Become Even Sillier

Miranda Devine Vs. Reality

What is it with Miranda Devine and reality? Is she really that far detached from the real world? Every time the Sydney Morning Herald publishes her ramblings about illicit drugs, the more obvious the answer becomes. Every drug related article by Devine that I have read reeks of ultra conservative ideology and is hellbent on pushing the "War on Drugs" mentality. This is not some concerned citizen nobly defending society from drug crazed junkies but a hardcore zealot using deceit and the media to pursue her ultra right wing views. Most worrying is that she is free to proselytise her flimsy views via a national platform like the Sydney Morning Herald. Considering her conservative, apocryphal articles and the quality of her information, it’s surprising that that her rants are not under the corporate umbrella of News Ltd.


And where does she get her information from? In her latest article, Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free, Devine once again, takes deceit to a whole new level. The assumptions are brain chilling and much of her information is simply wrong. For example, Cabramatta police turning a blind eye to drug dealers? Very few options for addicts apart from Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone? Abstinence is a dirty word in the AOD treatment industry? The biggest advocates for drug prohibition are former addicts? An addict’s last hope is naltrexone implants? The “methadone industry” benefits greatly from a large number of patients? Nearly every point Devine makes is a fantasy dreamt up to support the “drug free world” illusion. This is not worthy of publication in Mad Magazine let alone the Sydney Morning Herald.

Devine argues that Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) like methadone is evil and abstinence only programs are unfairly being ignored by a greedy, self serving “methadone industry”. The attack includes her old favourites, Harm Minimisation and the NSW government whilst flying the flag for the "War on Drugs". It’s standard fare for Miranda Devine.

But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW

-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald

So what is the basis for Devine's article? Believe it or not, it’s a few recovering drug addicts who disagree with the mainstream. Three out of hundreds of thousands who have benefited from OST, declare they were not happy being on methadone and buprenorphine. I know first hand that methadone or buprenorphine is not for everyone but that’s not unusual for any medication or treatment. But the facts speak for themselves. Opiate Substitution Treatment (OST) is the most successful treatment we have readily available for opiate addiction. That’s not to say that abstinence only treatment doesn’t have a place in recovery but unless an addict is 100% ready to quit, it’s pointless. Devine's solution is naltrexone implants. Whilst implanting naltrexone is fine for some, pushing patients into this treatment has shown to have dire consequences including death. Devine and co. feel that being totally drug free should be the only goal of drug treatment including programs like the Narcotics Anonymous(NA) 12 steps program, drug free detox centres and of course naltrexone implants. But this model of abstinence only treatment has really only been mainstream since prohibition where before that, the actual drug of addiction was prescribed to the addict until they were ready to quit. It seemed to work very well until the conservative, religious loonies got involved. Now many decades on and with a world where abstinence treatments compete heavily for the this lucrative market, addiction rates remain as they were a hundred years ago when they first stared recording these statistics. The big difference is the number of relapsing patients thanks to abstinence only programs.

Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.

-Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free by Miranda Devine - Sydney Morning Herald

It’s difficult to examine the example addicts in Devine's article without knowing more details. The story of Sam being put on buprenorphine appears inappropriate but ironically, once out of jail he was back on heroin. Both Sam and Rueben have only been clean for less than 8 months which is way too early to examine their success. The real danger comes when their naltrexone implants stop working and they relapse. With no tolerance to opiates, even a tiny dose of heroin will kill them. But that’s not important. What counts to Devine and co. is that these addicts are now clean and whether they relapse and die doesn’t matter.

Methadone

Three grumpy, recovering heroin addicts does not compete with the success of OST. Methadone Maintenance Treatment(MMT) was never meant to be a cure for heroin addiction but a way to stabilise a patient’s life. It removed the insatiable need to feed their addiction every day which often involved crime. It allows time to re access priorities and slide back into society giving addicts the chance to work and function like everyone else. Using methadone as a holding treatment until the patient is ready to start a decline in dose wasn’t the standard practice until the last few decades. This has lead to a popular belief that those who don’t completely stop methadone are not successful. And that’s where Miranda Devine’s article fails once again. To ignorant, moral conservatives like Devine, abstinence should be the only goal and methadone is seen as some sort of excuse that just keeps a patient addicted. She is either unwilling to allow medical facts and logic to overcome her conservative views or she’s just thick. The other option is she doesn’t really care and is simply a dickhead.

Devine uses psychologist Ross Colquhoun to back up her argument against methadone. Colquhoun makes some remarkable statements and assumptions that plainly show how wrong Devine is.

The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever

-Dr. Ross Colquhoun

This is simply a lie but it’s not uncommon for anti-Harm Minimisation zealots to take myths and declare they are facts. It’s only recently that doctors have started to rethink their strategy for some methadone patients. Nearly all patients were weaned off their dose over a period of time but doctors have started to concentrate on keeping some patients stable and maintaining a steady dose. Contrary to Colquhoun’s claim, most MMT patients still have a reducing dose with the goal of abstinence.

Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives

-Dr. Ross Colquhoun

Methadone was never meant to be a short term treatment but with pressure from anti-drug groups and tossers like Colquhoun, the push was on to produce results. For naive governments and abstinence only supporters, success meant addicts being totally clean. There was no room to count rehabilitation whilst on MMT as a success as it only muddied their results. This lead to pushing addicts thorough the system quicker. Being on treatment wasn’t enough, they wanted clean, fully recovered patients regardless of relapse. You probably have heard it before from politicians who call methadone, "liquid handcuffs" or claim addicts are just swapping one addiction for another. A recent announcement from Scotland said that they were considering the removal of MMT and replacing it with abstinence only programs. The reason was of course that too many addicts were still on methadone. Bronwyn Bishop and John Howard have made a point of it, Fred Nile raised it in parliament, John McCain tried to introduce a similar bill in the US and several UK politicians have pushed for it. All of these attempts are based on ignorance and winning popularity. The fact is, OST has helped millions of people worldwide and is accepted by addiction specialists as the best solution currently available.

Naltrexone

I have experienced Rapid Opiate Detoxification (ROD) and naltrexone first hand. Luckily for me, the naltrexone was administered by taking a pill each day because after 3 days, I had a bad reaction and had to stop taking it. If it was an implant, I probably would have taken the same course of action like many others and cut it out myself with a razor blade. The ROD was the worst experience of my life which left me almost comatose for 2 months. So what was the problem? Apart from being on a high dose of methadone, naltrexone didn’t agree with me. Those pushed into naltrexone implants don’t have the easy option to simply stop taking a pill and must request that it be removed surgically. Fat chance of that. The main problem with naltrexone implants is the risk of overdose. If the patient does cut it out or the implant ceases to work, they are left with no tolerance to opiates which means their next hit of heroin might be their last. There are dozens of cases of death from overdose after naltrexone treatment and usually from those who were coerced into receiving the implants. 

What most people don’t know is that naltrexone implants have not been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).  For 10 years, the biggest clinic in WA which is funded by the government, still has to get a special permit to operate because the implants have not been approved yet. The clinic, Fresh Start is using a clause in health legislation that allows experimental treatments for life-threatening conditions. There have been many articles and reports criticising the practice but the faithful continue to praise the treatment as the only way forward for opiate addiction. The push for naltrexone implants comes from several dedicated anti-Harm Minimisation warriors including Drug Free Australia (DFA), Bronwyn Bishop, Dr. Stuart Reece and Dr. George O’Neil. The latter two being owners of addiction treatment centres who specialise in these implants. Reece was once charged with the deaths of 25 patients and was investigated for treating a pregnant addict although naltrexone implants were never cleared for use during pregnancy. Both Reece and O’Neil are opponents of needle exchanges, OST and even promoting condoms for safe sex. They frequently use quotes from the bible and other religious symbolism in their quest for abstinence only treatments and Reece even went as far as saying that “Jesus cures addiction". These 2 doctors are the basis for the promotion of naltrexone implants. Not because they offer some magic formula for curing opiate addiction but because it is an alternative to OST and Harm Minimisation. Naltrexone implants stop the effects of heroin and force the patient into total abstinence which is the key to it’s popularity amongst the religious right, moral crusaders and prohibitionists. Damn the results, the deaths and the relapses. Who cares if someone is not suited to an implant ... it’s not Harm Minimisation!

Zealot

What drives Miranda Devine to repeatedly push myths and misinformation onto the public? What does she have to gain except criticism from those who are more knowledgeable than her? Every time she writes about drug related issues, dozens of people expose the flaws and fallacies in her article which would be enough to force most writers to re-examine their views. It would at least prompt most writers to double check their facts. 

Devine despises Harm Minimisation and believes that drug use is an issue of law and order. She is a self confessed supporter of the "War on Drugs" and will go to great lengths to discredit any opposition.  Devine has no ability to accept modern medicine and scientific research if it steps on her ideology. It feels remarkably like someone who believe in creationism and who will do anything to prove science wrong for their convictions. These are not the traits of an intelligent, rational adult but a fanatic, obsessed by misguided dogma, fighting their own fears. Ignoring facts and evidence are the traits of a zealot - a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals, someone who considers their own views more important than those of experts, someone who believes their own bullshit. Having an opinion is one thing but misleading and deceiving nearly a million readers is bordering on the edge of lunacy. 

Addicts Say Abstinence Sets Them Free

By Miranda Devine

Sydney Morning Herald

May 23, 2009

When it comes to drug prohibition, the biggest advocates are former addicts, if you can find any in NSW, where abstinence is a dirty word and the state requires its heroin users to be sedated on methadone for the rest of their lives. 

Just ask addicts what they thought of the harm minimisation experiments of the 1990s, when police were instructed to turn a blind eye to drug use in Cabramatta, Australia's heroin capital.
"While it's so easily available its always a problem," says Reuben, 28, a former heroin and methadone addict who has been drug-free for four months. In the mid-1990s, he was smoking marijuana every day, when he and his friends started riding the train to Cabramatta to get heroin.
"I avoided it for a little while but it was so good, so pure, so easy to get. Police never told the dealers to back off. A 13, 14, 15-year-old kid doesn't know right from wrong.
"You use it because it's there and because the people around you use it."
Sam, a 30-year-old former heroin addict, is still angry when he talks about Cabramatta. "You couldn't ride on the train without people asking you 50 times [if you wanted to buy heroin]. Why did the government stop police from arresting [dealers]? There were no police whatsoever. It was a safe haven for heroin dealers. It isn't good for us … We need prohibition."
Sam ended up in jail, where he took the opportunity to go cold turkey. He spent three days in a dry-out cell, enduring the nausea, diarrhoea, hot and cold flushes, insomnia, pain and stomach cramps. He spent the rest of his three-year sentence drug-free - or he would have. Three months before he was due to be released he was told that, as a heroin user at risk of relapse, he would have to start taking a highly addictive synthetic opiate, buprenorphine, or "bupe", a methadone substitute, or he would not get parole.
"I didn't want another habit," Sam says. "I kicked the habit when I got locked up. [But] you've got no option." He describes bupe and methadone as "liquid handcuffs". He left jail a buprenorphine addict, and was soon back on heroin.
Reuben, too, was prescribed methadone when he sought help for his addiction. He was given no other option but to accept addiction for life, a slave every day to the methadone clinic he hated.
The harm minimisation industry philosophy that holds sway in NSW is that once you're an addict, you are always an addict. But, for those who don't want to spend their life as a drug-addicted zombie, there are few options.
One of their last hopes is the psychologist Ross Colquhoun's addiction clinic in Ultimo, the only place in NSW to perform rapid detoxification on addicts using implants of the non-addictive drug naltrexone, which blocks the effects of opiates on the brain for about three months.
This morning two addicts will undergo the rapid detox, sedated and under the supervision of a doctor and two registered nurses. Their physical cravings gone, they will need counselling and further implants but, like thousands before them, their chances are good, Colquhoun says, of freeing themselves from addiction.
But abstinence has no place in the curiously monocultural drug and alcohol world of NSW. And so Colquhoun's naltrexone clinic has been under heavy fire for 10 years, with 10 complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission - all cleared - withdrawal of a federal grant, and general bad-mouthing, to the point where one staffer says: "We are being treated like a backyard abortion clinic in the 1950s."
Two weeks ago came the latest blow that may prove to be the killer, when the NSW Department of Health's Pharmaceutical Services Branch withdrew permission for the clinic to use a morphine drug (MS Contin) as a "bridge" for detoxing methadone addicts. Because methadone is so addictive and causes such terrible withdrawal problems, addicts must abstain for at least five days before detox. Switching to MC Contin stops cravings and is easier to detox.
Critics regard naltrexone as a tool of "coercive abstinence". They say it causes deaths because, when the implant effect wears off, an addict's previous resistance to heroin is gone and they can overdose.
But what is the alternative?
"The Government does not have an exit strategy for people on methadone, who they are prepared to leave addicted for ever," Colquhoun says. "Methadone has a place in treatment in the short term but many people grow out of it and want to get on with their lives."
The methadone industry is booming. Figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare this week showed the number of people on methadone has almost doubled since 1998, up from 24,600 to 41,300 last year, with the majority of doses dispensed privately. No wonder the methadone industry is defensive.
Colquhoun regards methadone as an instrument of "social control".
"They want to keep you nice and happy and sedated and drugged," says Jodde, who managed to wean herself off a massive 120-milligram daily dose of methadone three years ago.
"I was like a vegetable … The doctors, the police, they're all working to keep you in a shithole.
"Once you're a methadone addict, you're public property. You're a piece of crap; you have no rights. It's degrading. You go to seek help and that's what happens."
Sam and Reuben have overcome their addictions so far with the help of naltrexone. Sam has reunited with his family, and has not taken drugs for eight months.
Reuben is at TAFE studying adult literacy. "I've only just started enjoying being straight. It's a dramatic change from not being able to do anything.
"I feel productive for the first time in my life. I haven't ever really felt that."
You need a good reason to deny Reuben that chance.

Related Articles:

Miranda Devine, Drug Prohibition, Abstinence, the war on drugs and the herding of cats

The Ballad Of Alex And Miranda

A Devine Nutter & That Booklet

Miranda Devine - Bitch Slapped by the Doctor

Are Flat Earth Journalist Intelligent? No ... Just Dangerous