Well, it seemed like a wasted effort to respond to this article from yesterday's Herald Sun, but it came amidst a big-wig law enforcement meeting held in M-Town this week and not since the recent canonisation of long-decayed remains has there been such an outpouring of fallacy. In Monday's Age, Australia's 'finest' take credit (again!) for the decrease in the amount and purity of heroin since the 'glut' died down at the turn of the century. I, and no-one I know, has yet seen evidence to show that this is the case and, in the spirit of Saint Mary MacKillop, this week's conference didn't even see the need for evidence at all.
Our esteemed 'representatives' then weighed in when a Sir Ken Jones called for a public debate on the issue, but made it very clear that he is not in favour of a softer approach. Now I have to say that Sir Jones' idea is a great one and Paul Dillon's supporting comments are the highlight of this article. Issues of importance are not opened up to public debate nearly enough and this is one that, if executed fairly, would be an incredibly valuable opportunity. And yes Paul, thinking outside the square will be important. However, next time you mention the situation with pot in the Netherlands it would be highly appropriate to also explain the current political context. I'd hate for the unaware public to think "Gee, those Dutch wastoids ended up with overflowing looney bins and shooting in the streets, so now they're cracking down." It's also interesting that California, located in the heart of the drug war, is currently considering a proposition that would allow personal possession and cultivation of weed under a prescribed amount.
Unfortunately, Sir Ken goes wayward later in the piece with this lovely piece of saint-inspired work:
"He said the public should be educated about the flow-on costs, from higher insurance premiums to delays in elective surgery as hospitals treated the fallout from drugs and crime."
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny; a primary aim of "legalisation", as you call it, is to REDUCE the levels of fallout and crime from drugs. I am astounded that you didn't pick this up from the law enforcement folk you chatted to at the conference, given that this very point is the foundation upon which they build their argument as 'crime fighters'. A friend in an inner-western suburb recently had his house run through and most tragically, lost two laptops that had years and years of photos, documents etc., and he informed me that the entire suburb has suffered from break-and-enters that he thinks are most likely drug-related. I tend to agree.
So I'm bewildered Sir Jones, why a REGULATED market/ treatment program (I like to use the word regulate rather than legalise, because the latter has become tainted and consequently gravely misunderstood) where price and availability would be affordable, or maybe even subsidised, would increase levels of crime and raise insurance premiums. Golly gee, I think that insurance companies are probably part of the armada that supports the drug war - they are likely to be raking it in based on the millions of people who wish to protect their home and contents from the world's 'insane junkies'!
Dear Ken, if you actually took the time to speak with people who use illicit drugs or who are dependent upon them, access to their drug of choice, a decent feed, somewhere reasonable to stay, a meaningful job (if they can manage), a solid group of friends, family connection, travel, great tunes and an otherwise regular life are all that is wanted. Crime is most often the last resort for the most desperate. And then if people want to move on from their drug use, all they want is timely access to non-judgmental, effective services. We've been using drugs for thousands of years Ken, don't you think it's a fair way to go?
And then your daughter comes up and you even go so far as to touch on alcohol and tobacco. Oh Ken, what did they teach you when you were knighted? Are you sure they got the right Ken Jones? What does this mean?:
"If we had our time again, we wouldn't have allowed tobacco ... or alcohol. Are we going to add another 20 to the list? I don't think so."
Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, psilocybin and cannabis were all prolific prior to the implementation of Prohibition but this didn't stop anyone. Because the implication from your statement is that now that alcohol and tobacco have been around for so long we can't do anything about those drugs because, hey, it's too late. Well actually Kenny, according to the 'War on Drugs', it isn't too late and you might want to get started on it. Oh but wait, you won't do that because it wouldn't work and would actually do more harm then good. Ahhh, I gotcha Kenny *wink wink*; up there for thinking mate *smile*
Golly, did I forget Teddy Baillieu? He presented the following:
“For example, the Mental Health Council of Australia has found that cannabis users are three times more likely to develop psychosis and that Victorian secondary school students who use cannabis weekly are five times more likely to harm themselves."
With regards to the first half, is this the statement you have distorted?:
"There is a 2-3 times greater incidence of psychotic symptoms among those who used cannabis, however, the epidemiological data shows that cannabis cannot be considered a major causal factor."
And whilst, at this stage, I do not dispute the second half of your statement, you might want to know that regulation aims to reduce young people's access to certain drugs by placing responsibility in the hands of legitimate retailers instead of the black market, where such controls could be put in place. Of course, young people will always find a way, a fact that I am reminded of every morning when I pass the same group of school kids puffing away. I mean it's not all bad - my pot-smoking mate from high school is now a high flyer in the video games industry. If drugs were actually regulated, people would receive comprehensive education regarding the drug they are interested in prior to purchase, rather than people just interested in making money - or that's how I see it anyway. It's important to remember that people are not going to start flocking to use drugs just because they are no longer criminalised.
In the end, though, I agree Sir Ken Jones - we need to have a debate that is fair and open.
Our esteemed 'representatives' then weighed in when a Sir Ken Jones called for a public debate on the issue, but made it very clear that he is not in favour of a softer approach. Now I have to say that Sir Jones' idea is a great one and Paul Dillon's supporting comments are the highlight of this article. Issues of importance are not opened up to public debate nearly enough and this is one that, if executed fairly, would be an incredibly valuable opportunity. And yes Paul, thinking outside the square will be important. However, next time you mention the situation with pot in the Netherlands it would be highly appropriate to also explain the current political context. I'd hate for the unaware public to think "Gee, those Dutch wastoids ended up with overflowing looney bins and shooting in the streets, so now they're cracking down." It's also interesting that California, located in the heart of the drug war, is currently considering a proposition that would allow personal possession and cultivation of weed under a prescribed amount.
Unfortunately, Sir Ken goes wayward later in the piece with this lovely piece of saint-inspired work:
"He said the public should be educated about the flow-on costs, from higher insurance premiums to delays in elective surgery as hospitals treated the fallout from drugs and crime."
Kenny, Kenny, Kenny; a primary aim of "legalisation", as you call it, is to REDUCE the levels of fallout and crime from drugs. I am astounded that you didn't pick this up from the law enforcement folk you chatted to at the conference, given that this very point is the foundation upon which they build their argument as 'crime fighters'. A friend in an inner-western suburb recently had his house run through and most tragically, lost two laptops that had years and years of photos, documents etc., and he informed me that the entire suburb has suffered from break-and-enters that he thinks are most likely drug-related. I tend to agree.
So I'm bewildered Sir Jones, why a REGULATED market/ treatment program (I like to use the word regulate rather than legalise, because the latter has become tainted and consequently gravely misunderstood) where price and availability would be affordable, or maybe even subsidised, would increase levels of crime and raise insurance premiums. Golly gee, I think that insurance companies are probably part of the armada that supports the drug war - they are likely to be raking it in based on the millions of people who wish to protect their home and contents from the world's 'insane junkies'!
Dear Ken, if you actually took the time to speak with people who use illicit drugs or who are dependent upon them, access to their drug of choice, a decent feed, somewhere reasonable to stay, a meaningful job (if they can manage), a solid group of friends, family connection, travel, great tunes and an otherwise regular life are all that is wanted. Crime is most often the last resort for the most desperate. And then if people want to move on from their drug use, all they want is timely access to non-judgmental, effective services. We've been using drugs for thousands of years Ken, don't you think it's a fair way to go?
And then your daughter comes up and you even go so far as to touch on alcohol and tobacco. Oh Ken, what did they teach you when you were knighted? Are you sure they got the right Ken Jones? What does this mean?:
"If we had our time again, we wouldn't have allowed tobacco ... or alcohol. Are we going to add another 20 to the list? I don't think so."
Cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, psilocybin and cannabis were all prolific prior to the implementation of Prohibition but this didn't stop anyone. Because the implication from your statement is that now that alcohol and tobacco have been around for so long we can't do anything about those drugs because, hey, it's too late. Well actually Kenny, according to the 'War on Drugs', it isn't too late and you might want to get started on it. Oh but wait, you won't do that because it wouldn't work and would actually do more harm then good. Ahhh, I gotcha Kenny *wink wink*; up there for thinking mate *smile*
Golly, did I forget Teddy Baillieu? He presented the following:
“For example, the Mental Health Council of Australia has found that cannabis users are three times more likely to develop psychosis and that Victorian secondary school students who use cannabis weekly are five times more likely to harm themselves."
With regards to the first half, is this the statement you have distorted?:
"There is a 2-3 times greater incidence of psychotic symptoms among those who used cannabis, however, the epidemiological data shows that cannabis cannot be considered a major causal factor."
And whilst, at this stage, I do not dispute the second half of your statement, you might want to know that regulation aims to reduce young people's access to certain drugs by placing responsibility in the hands of legitimate retailers instead of the black market, where such controls could be put in place. Of course, young people will always find a way, a fact that I am reminded of every morning when I pass the same group of school kids puffing away. I mean it's not all bad - my pot-smoking mate from high school is now a high flyer in the video games industry. If drugs were actually regulated, people would receive comprehensive education regarding the drug they are interested in prior to purchase, rather than people just interested in making money - or that's how I see it anyway. It's important to remember that people are not going to start flocking to use drugs just because they are no longer criminalised.
In the end, though, I agree Sir Ken Jones - we need to have a debate that is fair and open.
I think you misunderstood what Jones was saying when he referred to higher insurance costs etc - he meant that that is a cost now and is one reason for changing the law. Also I think you exaggerate when you say prohibition doesn't stop anyone from using drugs. I think that is demonstrably false so. Clearly, it doesn't stop everybody. Or is it just coincidence that the most popular drugs are also the most 'legal' - e.g. alcohol and tobacco (?)
ReplyDeleteI dont think so. Or I hope not. Jones clearly states that those people he spoke to at the meeting who are pro-legalisation are "naive" and need to have their views exposed, which is why he adamantly opposes legalisation. Why would he view the issues you raise as an education for the public? Maybe it's just poor journalism?
ReplyDeleteI believe alcohol and nicotine have been marketed in an unethical manner and are available too freely. That is why they are so popular. Plus, they are really pretty crappy drugs in the scheme of things - taste bad and are psychoactive in a very crude, short-term manner. The other drugs in question are far more intense and many people will be put off by this, in addition to the different modes of administration and side effects. Many people find such drugs take too much effort, unlike the relative ease of alcohol and tobacco.
Whilst other drugs would be legal, they would not be marketed, nor would they be freely available. I also think it is ironic that Ken is calling others naive.