Australian Government National Drugs Campaign: 'Drugs - The real facts'

I am really loving this autumn. It's been so warm and in the dying moments of this year's Daylight Savings period, it was a pleasure to stand riverside whilst live Australian music heralded the launch of National Youth Week for 2011. As part of the Australian government's commitment to its young citizens, one of the stalls at the launch consolidated upon the Ecstasy. Face Facts. education campaign that has been plastered throughout the country alongside other promotional media asking us to get off the couch and bet on horse racing or to try new alcoholic beverages on the market. If you are not familiar with the 'seatless toilet' campaign, then this will give you some idea.

The stall was giving away show bags that contained a small assortment of items, including an awesome medium-sized water bottle, with the most significant one being a Drugs - The real facts booklet. At first glance, I was considerably struck by the booklet's omission of heroin, nicotine and alcohol. I'm sure it was a financial issue and because of the other campaigns that have been churned out, but given that the resource is selling itself as the 'real' facts, I was perplexed as to why one would leave these substances out. The next thing that grabbed me was the evidence of a more savvy information source with regards to language and updated terms. For example, up-to-date 'street' terms have been included and the content is more comprehensive, with the inclusion of scientific detail such as neurotransmitter names and research data excerpts. It seems that the people involved have decided that young people are more sophisticated in the 21st century and thus require a commensurate resource, which seems reasonable to me.

However, what these people seemed to have missed, yet again, is that the sophistication that is being catered for also means that in order for this type of education to work, one needs to present drugs for what they are and what the subsequent experiences of young people are. Also, many of the particularly vulnerable young people who really need such information will not receive it through this booklet - either they don't access information in this way, or will not have access to such information.

Even though there is one seemingly real dance-floor photo depicting enjoyment in the entire booklet, there is very little recognition of what young people really do witness or experience.

Under the section on MDMA, the best that is on offer is: "MDMA reduces inhibitions and causes users to become more alert, affectionate and energetic. Ecstasy starts to "come on" within 20 minutes of taking it, producing a euphoric rush that peaks after another hour or so." The remainder of the four-page section uses terms such as "blood pressure", "anxiety", "memory damage" and "horse tranquiliser". Don't get me wrong, as I agree that such terms have relevance to the subject matter, but we should have learned by now that in an overwhelming climate where drugs are demonised, the emphasis here is all wrong. We need to be focusing our energies upon the engagement of young people who are in the 'grey area', where they have experienced or seen friends experience pleasure, sometimes immense, with drugs and are consequently confused in light of the messages that they had received up until that point.

In the following sections on 'Ice', 'Marijuana (Cannabis)', 'Cocaine', 'Speed', 'GHB' and 'Depressants' a similar depiction is presented. For ice, there is "exhilaration" and "arousal" followed by a stream of information about the risks and harms. With pot, "relaxed" and "increased appetite" is offset with lines and lines of warnings. For coke, "arousal", "overly confident" and "talkative" are accompanied by four paragraphs of why the drug is dangerous. In the speed section "increased energy", "suppressed appetite" and "alertness" are presented as "normal" before the writers explain in the rest of the page why one shouldn't touch the drug, with a very prominent broken glass image in the top right-hand corner emphasising what is written. And so it continues...   

The point I am attempting to make is not new. In fact, this is a point that is so worn out that it drags at the heels of the drug education field like a piece of sticky litter on the bottom of one's shoe. Not only have the EXTREME dangers of illicit drug use seeped well and truly under our collective, societal skin, but I will be surprised if anyone, not just young people, even get through this booklet. Not only will people switch off after they quickly realise that the resource is only going to reiterate what they already know, but the thing is just not engaging, sitting in a space that has a tenuous connection to the actual life of the person in whose hands it sits.

We don't need to hear didactic drivel accompanied by sleek graphically-designed imagery. We need to hear from the young guy who tried ecstasy for the first time after swearing adamantly that he would never touch drugs, when he fell for a young woman whose best friend is a part-time dealer. We need to hear about the cousin of a friend who started seeing this guy who was in with all these cashed-up music promoters who take 'G' every weekend and have an "absolute ball". We need to read about the young group of friends who recently found out that the guy from Depeche Mode smoked a heap of pot when they recorded a multi-million selling album and then decide to try it for the first time. And we might need to ask the university student who tried cocaine after she was offered it at a party by people who shared her passion for Sigmund Freud, to disclose the connection between her decision to experiment and her studies on the Austrian neurologist.

Because the people who will read this booklet from cover to cover, apart from the annoying bloggers of the world, are concerned parents or journalists who will then treat people who use illicit drugs with even more disgust as they perceive a type of person who is so obtuse that he/she will use or continue to use a drug that has very little benefit and a seemingly endless list of drawbacks. This is without exploring the fact that the booklet provides no meaningful information about what can be done if drugs end up being used and something goes wrong.

It's funny, because one of the bands who played at the launch released the following lyrics with their last record:

"And we don't wanna get fucked up, oh no
 We just wanna get high!"

As a young person, I might actually learn more from those two lines than from the entire National Drugs Campaign booklet. Maybe rock 'n' roll 'aint noise pollution after all?

More info HERE.

'Necessary Evil' launch

Hello good friends of the Interweb,

For all your moving and talking image needs in the illicit drug realm, check out new web-show, Necessary Evil, over at the Tube: www.youtube.com/preacherpusher

Episode #01's guest is none other than Greg Denham from the newly-formed LEAP Australia. Don't know who they are? Well get on over there then!!!

Neil Burger's 'Limitless'

For anyone who might be thinking that this blog has descended into a cheap version of John-Michael Howson's greatest hits, it might be worthwhile taking note of what everyone's favourite Italian dictator, Mussolini, displayed at the entrance of the famous Cinecitta studio in Rome: "Cinematography is the most powerful weapon" (a quote from Lenin). Regardless of one's political persuasion, it is a nugget of truth in a world where the local multiplex has become a proxy educational institution. Here's betting that whilst your little cousin might not know who the Prime Minister is, he/she can probably tell you what TV show Bradley Cooper was in.

Cooper's new vehicle, Limitless, also stars Robert De Niro and I can't help but wonder about the views of both De Niro and long-time friend/collaborator Martin Scorsese, as the latter is an Executive Producer for HBO's current hit, Boardwalk Empire. My pondering comes about because of the potential subtext in Limitless and the tagline for Scorsese's HBO debut that has been plastered all over Melbourne's artsy walkways - "Alcohol was outlawed and outlaws became kings".

Limitless may have been made with Hollywood coin, but its content seems removed from the usual fare that is churned out under such duress. In a nutshell, the film relays the rise of a struggling writer into the role of senate candidate via the highest echelon of the corporate world. How? Using, as Cooper's character Eddie Morra states openly, "medication". Without being a 'spoiler', it is fair to say that director Neil Burger delivers the audience a drug dependent hero who fights 'baddies' that take the form of Mafia types and business moguls. Unbelievable, huh? As you can imagine, with sugar, fat and sugar in hand, I sat expecting the usual morality tale to unfold before me, with Cooper resplendently repentant following a path of selfish, drug-fuelled destruction. But no; as the pieces of chocolate fell to the floor between my knees and the couple behind me insisted on being excessively annoying, Burger and Co. conveyed a narrative that shows how drugs can be managed in terms of their harms.

The film's first substantial statement on drugs, conscious or not, arrives in a scene where Morra unexpectedly returns to his ex-brother-in-law after experiencing the powerful effects of the drug ('NZT-48') passed on to him as a launch pad for his yet-to-be-started book - a way to unleash creative power. Desperate to commence writing, Morra had popped the pill and subsequently discovered that NZT allows him to tap into memories and knowledge that had previously been 'locked away' in the hidden recesses of his mind. In the dealer's apartment Morra's running narration questions whether he should obtain more of a drug from a person he doesn't trust, made in illicit conditions and not legitimised by the FDA. His prompt answer? - "Yes. Definitely!" And this is from a person who has only taken a drug once. A response to the frequently-asked question of "why do they do it?!" or "why do they keep doing it?!" is partially illuminated, as the viewer is introduced to the basic equation of 'something is proven to make a significant difference, it works and more is available = so people seek that something out again and again'. And it works in a profound, unrivalled manner in spite of its origins. This is not alien behaviour - it is essentially human and Limitless seems to comprehend this.

Matters just seem to only get better as the film covers several more important points in a fresh, non-hackneyed way (I know, one has to ask, "What drugs were they on?!"). The pervasiveness of drug use, where class distinctions are inconsequential, is dealt with in a story where all kinds of people are taken by the drug's power. Then, the notion of tapering use when withdrawing from a drug is introduced in a scene where Morra seeks assistance from the dealer's partner who warns Morra not to immediately cease using the drug to avoid death. And then the whole dependence/withdrawal thing is looked at and the film's protagonist really does look incredibly unwell, to the point where I completely believed that he was unable to physically move for the purpose of obtaining the remaining drugs that he had stashed at his girlfriend's apartment. I momentarily hated on Morra for sending his lady out to do his dirty work, but not only was he being followed, he was also in a state comparable to day three or four of opiate withdrawal - with Burger and Cooper doing it justice.

However, it is the next scene in the film that most impressed me. After Morra's supportive girlfriend returns with his stash, he recommences taking the drug as part of a pre-meditated plan and relays to the audience what he learns to do different the second time around to ameliorate the drug's harms, including avoiding alcohol. Hang on, hang on, I better go over that again slowly. Morra... recommences... using... the drug... thereby... maintaining his... dependence... but... teaches himself... how to best... reduce... the harms. Did you catch that? Sorry to anyone who got it the first time, but I had to do that for my own good also. That's not where it ends though. Morra then goes on to not only continue use and build his own $2 million laboratory to maintain his supply, but also gets to stay in a relationship with the non-drug using partner!

Tool front-man, Maynard James Keenan, was once quoted as saying something along the lines of "The point of using drugs is to try and then replicate those experiences without the drugs". Regardless of what you think of this statement, Limitless probably owes a thing or two to Keenan and, without giving away too much, the ending is further evidence of this.

Now it may be worth noting that I might be getting a little too carried away with this film, as Morra's journey is not all smooth sailing and it would be valid to question the values that drive his trajectory (the sole injecting scene is also questionable and aside from any 'demonising' purpose, seems to get the whole 'duration of effect' thing wrong). But what is so refreshing and wonderful about Limitless is that it isn't clear cut and life is not portrayed as a sickeningly trite picture of 'good and evil'. And, for once, we are not asked to despise the drug dependent and the drug itself is not Satan incarnate. I also believe that the questions that it prompts us to ask - such as what is the role of pharmaceutical companies in the future and the inherent dangers when drugs are in the hands of the illegal market - are worthwhile ones. At the very least, the film comes from a different angle. Hopefully for this over-excited blogger, Neil Burger won't be the next spokesperson for 'Hollywood hates heroin' or 'Tinseltown talks tough', or some other poorly-titled campaign.

The drug in Limitless purports to provide consumers access to the entire human brain (apparently, though, humans have access to the entire brain and the '20 percent' claim is a myth - but then again, since when have we been experts on our own brains?). Psychedelic drugs have also been discussed in relation to 'mind expansion', 'awareness enhancement' and 'consciousness elevation'. Whilst I have to say that I think it is still too early for us to make empirical, fact-based statements about the validity of such claims, I have observed people, in both personal and public domains, who seem to have flourished creatively and developed keen insight following experimentation with drugs like LSD. What seems to have been the greatest difficulty for such people, and others who haven't fared so well, was the lack of guidance - the absence of substantial support from experienced 'teachers' or legitimate information sources that can facilitate learning.

In the end, like many other areas of life, people learn to make do and use whatever is available to them at the time. Unfortunately, without such guidance people can become isolated and despairing as the misunderstanding of others makes an incomprehensible experience much worse than it needs to be - what is commonly referred to as a 'bad trip', for example, is catastrophised and mistakenly distorted. When Humphrey Osmond wrote to Aldous Huxley, "To fathom Hell or soar angelic, just take a pinch of psychedelic" I believe that he was making sense of the variability of the LSD experience. The ignorance that the 'War on Drugs' has nurtured has distorted the 'bad trip' into merely an indication of a person's mental instability or the drug's poisonous nature. Instead of attempting to understand the factors that influence drug experiences or the learning that can arise from 'negative' drug experiences, drug hysteria often makes matters worse by patronising or misunderstanding people.

Interestingly, such a challenge also emerges in Limitless, and it becomes readily apparent that Morra's primary problem is his confinement within an illicit arena with no regulatory assistance or scientifically-tested information and the odd shady character to negotiate. Consequently, and with the assistance of the drug itself, Morra puts into motion an idea that many drug dependent people can only dream of - he creates his own supply, enlisting the help of a qualified professional.

Following the discovery of Morra's drug use by his partner, Limitless has the standard relationship tussle in which the matter of the 'real Eddie' and the 'other Eddie' is discussed. Cooper's character earnestly asserts to his girlfriend that the drug doesn't change who he essentially is. And even though Lindy doesn't accept this because she had recently used the drug herself, the film's ending makes it clear that the drug simply enhanced what was already there - it is still Edward Morra who is running for senate and having dinner with his loved one. From cradle to grave, all kinds of things in our lives change who we are and influence us throughout each day. We now have a greater understanding of the continually developing 'self', as our genes continually and dynamically interact with our behaviour and external environment - humans are not 'set in stone' at any one point in time (even though some people might use this as an excuse for why they can't change). Drugs are just one part of this influential landscape, with both benefits and drawbacks, and can be managed as a legal product just like everything else. However, what cannot change is the human drive for drug experiences.

Already Been Done: Rick McCrank Interview

Could you be as open-minded and selfless as Rick McCrank when it comes to other people's drug use? Answering a question about being a non-drinker, McCrank puts a different spin on the whole 'selfish' thing that drug users often get lumped with:

"I also get bummed when it affects people’s skating and they’re too hung over to skate, I wish that didn’t happen. But it’s not too bad. I know they’re having a great time and that’s just me being selfish about it."

Again, skateboarding pushes matters to another level...

Danny Boyle's '127 Hours'

Lesson #31 from Danny Boyle's 127 Hours:

Drugs don't make you selfish; being selfish makes you selfish.

More info here

Every toke, snort or line is hypocrisy: Miranda Devine

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/every-toke-snort-or-line-is-hypocrisy/story-fn6bmfwf-1225999032845

Isn't it funny? In no other specialised field do inexperienced, non-participatory community members pipe up with their uninformed opinions on what's what. We don't have laypeople informing the aviation industry on the best way to avoid mishaps. Nor do we have the mostly ignorant explaining how best to improve IT platforms in the retail clothing industry. If there are significant, influential opinions to be voiced, they come from 'experts' or people who are greatly experienced. But lo and behold, if we move across to illicit drugs, it seems perfectly reasonable for people with inadequate experience who have barely stepped foot inside a service or hardly engaged with people who use drugs, to bandy about what they believe is necessary. And, extraordinarily, these individuals even crossover into the realm of policy! I know of the highly educated who study and work on policy who are reticent about expressing their views publicly.

In this week's Daily Telegraph, repeat offender Miranda Devine delivers a sermon that includes, no less, 'blood cocaine', rainforest destruction and murder in relation to the recent Matthew Chesher incident. It seems that whilst drug use is clearly off the menu for Miranda, crossing all kinds of other boundaries is clearly on the cards, regardless of the ramifications.

Miranda, we are never going to get anywhere unless we all get on the same page about what drug use actually is in the grand scheme of things. For example, when examining a behaviour that has persisted throughout the ages and can be traced back to the earliest of eras, it is grossly inadequate to imply that we are merely dealing with aberrant misconduct from deviant individuals or lesser human beings. Sounds familiar? Well that's because it is. Let's see, what else has slotted into this set of criteria:

1. Masturbation - during Victorian-era England, children were forced to wear 'therapeutic' torture devices during sleep to prevent the touching of one's own genitalia. Suicide notes, and their accompanying deaths, have been recorded and verified. There was an intense campaign implemented by the medical fraternity, to the point where even manuals championed female circumcision as a 'cure' - this is documented as late as the 1930s.

2. Homosexual relations - a situation that hasn't been entirely resolved as legislation still exists against the 'perversion' of same-sex relations.

3. Racial segregation - enough said.

What do I derive from this information? No, not that Satan is alive and well (although I did hear that he is 'living large' in Maui). No, what this tells me is that humans have a colourful history of declaring 'war' against innate features of ourselves that, for one reason or another, doesn't sit comfortably with individuals in positions of power who decide to spread their problems using legislation. Of course, if I was bestowed this kind of power, Enrique Iglesias would never record again and I would never see another 'Ed Hardy' or 'UNIT' t-shirt ever again. EVER. Flippant? Trivial? Well yes, because neither of those previously, and currently, enforced laws have been based on sound reasoning, humanism or evidence-based science. We never uncovered the outrageously harmful consequences of 'touching oneself', nor have we exposed the true evil face that has shown a sexuality borne of psychopathic rapist-killers with paedophile obsessions; and ethnic diversity is now celebrated worldwide. Such actions have been based, quite simply, on twisted morality, power misuse and distorted information.

That's right folks - we have in the past, and present, made terrible mistakes. Organised religion is always reminding us of our fallibility as humans but yet, when it is convenient for some, we uphold the 'law' as if it was presented to us by a celestial chariot commandeered by the almighty creator of the universe itself. Ladies and gentleman, LAW is the construction; LAW is human-made; LAW is changeable; and LAW can thus get it horribly wrong. Conversely, masturbation is NATURAL; homosexuality is NATURAL; humans of all kinds are NATURAL; and yes, drug use is NATURAL; and thus, NONE of these are changeable.

Miranda writes of a drug using "minority" but fails to remind the hapless reader that it is the vast majority that are drug users, with a significant minority in the illegal realm involved in a market that ranks amongst the top five in terms of global monetary turnover. Why would murderers meddle with such a small market? And it isn't just large - it is bloody enormous. And whilst this is bolstered by 'black market' prices, we are still looking at a very, very big deal when considered in a global context.

Why does any of this matter? Well, when Miranda reels off data to confirm a "marginal" activity that has been supposedly overstated, and aims her cross hairs at the 'progressive, pinko lefties' who hypocritically dismiss the ethical origins of their illicit substances, she misses a critical point. And this is where my opening remark also becomes salient because an informed and experienced individual would have drawn on the learnings attained from working day-in, day-out with people who use drugs, day-in, day-out. As humans we don't magically eliminate this innate aspect of ourselves any more than we eliminate the need for something like sex. Sure, people manage to abstain from either for a lifetime, but the rest of us (and boy are our numbers huge) have to work out how to get by. So when the unethical, African-made chocolate product is left untouched on the supermarket shelf, consumers don't simply stop eating chocolate. Of course not. Chocolate lovers turn to the product that says 'Made in the UK' on the wrapper (without really knowing what the ethical standards of the production stage actually are - how many of us examine the origins of every product that we purchase?). Similarly, when people choose to not use an illegal drug due to the legal status, they instead use substances that are legal such as alcohol, nicotine and codeine. The vast majority don't completely abstain. Because remember, we are dealing with an innate human trait. So an informed and experienced person would importantly explain that the 'success' that Miranda is proclaiming is more accurately articulated in this way:

"We have been successful in manipulating the population into embracing drugs that are legal and therefore profitable for the companies that produce them and the governments that tax them. These drugs are incredibly problematic (including the effects on young people) and harmful but most importantly, they are not illegal, making their use acceptable regardless of the massive number of consumers. It is unrealistic to expect the majority of humans to abstain from all drug use, so by making only certain drugs legal, society has successfully diverted its members into a particular drug-taking lifestyle."

When Miranda asks, "So where is this supposed demand for drugs that is so overwhelming..." with regards to currently-illicit drugs, a substantial response is easily drawn from the broader, 'legitimate' community who have, for a long time, displayed an insatiable hunger for mind-altering substances.

What Miranda also fails to mention is that the difference between the ethical chocolate consumer and the illicit drug user is that the former has a range of alternatives whereas the latter cannot seek out ethically-produced cocaine, for example. On the whole, would that be acceptable for Miranda? Based on this article alone, it seems that Miranda would be much happier if people produced or grew their own drugs in the interests of ethical consumerism? "No, no, no. Why don't they just stop using the drug altogether?", I hear you say. Well, you see, we have already established that drug use is innate, so your question would be more accurately articulated in this way:

"They have had the misfortune of enjoying a drug that is illegal, so they either need to stop altogether or switch over to a legal drug like alcohol or diazepam."

Oh, but I can hear the counter-argument now, "Don't bring alcohol and other legal drugs into it because we don't mug people and break into houses to use them". Oh, okay. Apart from the people who currently pawn goods and commit crime to obtain drugs like alcohol and nicotine, you won't mind then if we prohibit those drugs given the massive problems they cause because you wouldn't miss them anyway. You'd never purchase them if they were illegal and there is no way you would break the law to get money if, for example, the cost was fifty dollars for a bottle of beer. Okay, fair enough; we'll add caffeine into the mix and see what kind of world we create.

To finish off, I need to express confusion about Miranda's celebration of success and again, reinforce a couple of earlier points. Why, in the light of such success, are experienced people in the alcohol and other drug sector continuing to struggle with a lack of resources, long waiting lists and an opiate pharmacotherapy system that is buckling under an ever-increasing demand? Is it maybe because illicit users of licit drugs are not declaring themselves to be illicit drug users in the surveys Miranda refers to? Are the declining figures representative of a normalising following a glut or an inexplicable spike in the use of certain drugs? Are less people admitting to illicit drug use out of fear of disclosure? Maybe Dr Alex Wodak and his band of "liberalisers" might know given that they have extensive experience in the area?

Maybe we should stop fighting the seemingly radical aspects of ourselves and find options for people to explore them in safer and more reasonable ways? For people who love going fast, we offer racetracks and specially-designed vehicles. For people who love adrenaline, we offer skydiving, roller coasters and mountain biking. For people who love shooting and hunting, we offer game reserves and shooting ranges. For people who love fighting, we offer boxing clubs, martial arts and cage fighting matches. For people who love unconventional sexual practices, we offer accompanying devices, catered venues and services staffed by experienced practitioners. For people who enjoy specific stimulation of body parts, we offer body piercing, tattoos and scarification. And sure, we have to draw the line in places, but regarding the current situation with drugs, where a crooked, careless scribble creates a division that doesn't seem to make sense, I firmly believe a better job can be done.

The Huffington Post: R. Gil Kerlikowski

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/r-gil-kerlikowske/the-obama-administrations_1_b_816786.html

"Despite recent calls to do so, legalizing drugs is not the answer. Our opposition to legalization is not born out of a culture-war or drug-war mentality. It is born out of the recognition that our drug problem is a major public health threat, and that drug addiction is a preventable and treatable disease. Already drug use -- legal and illegal -- is the source of too many of our Nation's problems. Why would we implement policies that would make these problems worse?"

I have to say that R. Gil Kerlikowske's recent piece in The Huffington Post, an online publication that I have enjoyed in the past, makes for compelling reading. However, in relation to the aforementioned excerpt, I continue to insist on knowing why we don't then apply the same restrictions for both legal and illegal drugs. Why do we even need to make a distinction? I understand that each drug is different, but given that we already have "too many" problems, why don't we follow the 'success' we have experienced with illegal drugs and apply the same prohibitionist stance towards legal drugs?

I am happy to accept that I am being naive, but I wish someone would help me to understand precisely why this is so.