Zero Hedge

Maybe it has something to do with the world ending this year, but yet again this blog has found inspiration in the most unexpected of places - and this time it's the Finance sector??? (If I was eleven years-old, it would be highly likely that I would employ the 'WTF' acronym, both now and in subsequent text messages).

This blog decided to share something from the 'team incognito' at Zero Hedge because, as anyone who has followed the writing herein will know, progressive change in this most suffering of areas has not only been sorely lacking, but stagnation (or regression, according to some) has also come at the expense of both life and limb. So it thus becomes somewhat overwhelming when a piece of 2009 insight, allegedly from individuals based at the crux of the financial echelon, galvanises one's understanding of what has been weighing down the movement that could be doing so much when it come to redress and Prohibition's fallout.

So what exactly is meant by "so much" here, in this particular context?

When the field of drugs, including the funded efforts to reduce their harm, awaken to the heart of what really is its purpose then it may become clearly evident that it doesn't matter whose name comes up when a comparatively 'groundbreaking' event is referred to; it isn't important how many cut-and-paste email responses you made public as proof of how 'tuned in' and talented you really are; it matters not which award that person received and in what city that other person was seen speaking in, and also during what year; there is no real value in merely the amount of funding your organisation received (as well as the paid holidays you managed to wrangle with the funds that were supposed to be for 'Admin'); and it is of negligible consequence what your annual report looks like this year, what year your fleet vehicles are, how many committees you will be sitting on this year, how many EFT you are in charge of, how much press the symposium received, who got a 'Thanks' in whoever's latest book, which film that person was called in to be a consultant for, who it is that now calls themselves (and gets paid as) a 'consultant', whose blog appeared in... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

So without further ado, here's the enlightening, albeit belated, shine of Zero Hedge:
  

Zero Hedge's Op-Ed To The New York Times
Submitted by Marla Singer on 08/23/2009 11:34 -0400

I sent this Op-Ed proposal to the New York Times on Friday.  Perhaps they will print it.  If so, I will donate the proceeds (don't they pay you $450?) to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Zerohedge.com is a finance-focused weblog bringing together nearly 40 anonymous contributors dedicated to providing the public with a deeper, more detailed discourse on all things finance. After less than ten months since our first post, we’re among the top online publications nationwide in terms of readers, eclipsing other properties with several years of history, A-list contributors, and the backing of the country’s largest, mainstream media firms. Like many publications before us, not least the Federalist Papers, we encourage our contributors to use pen names.  Part of our rationale in adopting a publication-wide preference for anonymity (or, technically, pseudonymity) for our contributors and staff is to avoid making “the story” about the messengers rather than the message.  We believe content should stand on its own merits; if it cannot, neither a sterling reputation on the part of the author nor dazzling penmanship will manage to prop it up.  Likewise no amount of nefarious author history should, in isolation, tear down well-written, fact-based discussion and analysis.  An intelligent and skeptical audience should not be dazzled by several layers of foundation, whether on a swimsuit model or a sow.

On Thursday, following weeks of criticism of our anonymity on CNBC and elsewhere, a reporter from the New York Post confronted our public relations representative over the alleged identity of one of our contributors.  As a matter of policy, Zero Hedge does not comment on the identity of contributors or staff, but over the course of a 30 minute conversation with the reporter, something interesting emerged: the reporter in question was so befuddled by this policy that she barely knew what to say.  She had, quite literally, no idea how to write a story that wasn't primarily about personalities.  Her attempt to bribe our public relations representative with favorable coverage for an exclusive is an example of what is wrong with financial reporting today.  When reporting egos flatter (or threaten) other egos to pull facts, or garner the access required to secure a six-figure advance for their upcoming tell-all book, does anyone really believe we can expect an objective retelling of the facts worthy of the sacred, constitutionally-protected trust we as citizens have given the Fourth Estate?  Have the press forgotten that this is, in fact, a trust, and not a quitclaim deed?  Do they not realize that they are the Estate's trustees, and not its property owners?

Now, more than ever, anonymity is critical to the Republic.  This should surprise no one.  It has been a critical part of speech in this country since before its founding. Without the courageous and then-anonymous writings of, e.g., Thomas Paine or the authors of The Federalist Papers, our nation would be a very different place today.  Though we cannot confirm or deny that Thomas Paine or any of the founding fathers are Zero Hedge contributors today, we do believe we understand something of their motivation for using pen names.

Early on in Zero Hedge's history the view surfaced that, to bring up circulation, we should dumb down our content and post more biographical detail to bolster our credibility.  Thankfully, we decided against that.  The results, in terms of readership, and despite the absence of “credentials” as they are traditionally understood, speak for themselves. This is but one reason that today more than ever, we think it is time to end the cult of personality in financial reporting.  It is no accident that Harry Markopoulos (the accountant whose repeated attempts to expose Bernie Madoff to anyone who would listen were as often ignored) sought to avoid the limelight.

In 1995, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissions: “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society.”  Given the financial events of the last twelve months, we think it clear that this must be the end of the status quo for financial regulation in the United States.  We are also keenly aware that a number of extremely well-resourced, established players have little incentive in seeing any change at all.  As we live in an age where posting on a blog can get you fired years later after a casual, lunch-hour Google search by a Human Resources representative, has there ever been a more important time for anonymous speech in financial reporting?  We think not.

We revel in an educated, skeptical audience that takes us to task for every fact, assumption, and bit of analysis we write.  We think this keeps the focus where it belongs, away from the personalities and egos that muddy the water of skeptical inquiry.  Believe us, doubt us, argue with us, then decide where the best analysis is being generated: from reporters at brand-name media outlets, without a lifetime of expertise on the subjects on which they write and whose allegiances lie as much as with the sources they need to keep happy as with the readers they purportedly serve, or with those insiders who by shedding the burden of identification, are free to expose the abuses, absurdities, and abscesses of both those in power and those who report on them.

"Marla Singer," Zero Hedge

Tha Doggfather?

We must admit that Snoop Dogg has never been a 'go-to' kinda person when it comes to musing on the appalling state of the drug war and what can be done about it. And even though an adoption of the 'Doggy Style' that Snoop has waxed so lyrical about would win the anti-Prohibition movement more fans than it would know what to do with, the word that was going around not so long ago was that he is now more about the "gin and juice" than the 'blazing' of his more formative years. Anyhow, a close friend stumbled upon this excerpt from his magnum opus yesterday, and this blog seemed like, far and away, the best place on the interweb to reproduce it...

"Experts will tell you that the War on Drugs will only be won when we lock up all the dealers, or get tough with all the users, or build a 12-foot wall between us and the motherfuckers on the other side of the border. I don't know about any of that shit, but I can tell you this, from first-hand experience: this war everyone is supposed to be fighting won't be over until someone invents a cure for getting high. You take away all the cocaine, fools will still be smoking Indo; you take away all the Indo, they'll be drinking; you bring back Prohibition and they'll start sniffing glue. Let's face it: getting faded is a basic human drive, like food and water and sex and sleep. It's never been about some kind of so-called socio-economic disadvantage. You can't educate people into staying straight. There's no percentage in trying to scare people away from whatever it is that scratches that particular itch... you can't explain that away, or pass a law against it, or try to convince anyone to just say no. For most motherfuckers that's like trying to say no to air. And there's no-one alive who can hold their breath for that long."

A(wo)men. 

Go on - say something!

I guess after nearly 40 posts, it seems appropriate to address the issue of the 'loud mouth'. Of course, this blog has received its fair share of condescending swipes, so the call is being put out there for those who can cover the issues better (it wouldn't take much, after all) to please post links to your marvellous efforts in the comments section.

Sometimes the silent among us are holding onto a deep, deep wisdom - but often it's a simple case of the person having nothing of worth to contribute, fear of speaking out or an unwillingness to disclose true feelings on a subject due to the meagre value or offensive nature of their content.

Go on - if you're such a worthy judge on matters of importance and those who choose to make public comment, show us all how brilliant you really are!

Anex Bulletin - September 2011

The latest Anex Bulletin has published a piece about people on opiate pharmacotherapy programs and this blog thought it best to respond:

This blog has just been forwarded sections of the latest Anex Bulletin and it finds the inclusion of a couple of 'top 10' lists very offensive, especially in light of the trajectory of the illicit drug discourse in this country; not to mention the practice of gross simplification, pioneered and perpetuated by the commercial media, that the articles draw inspiration from. For what they are worth, here are our thoughts on the methadone list:

Methadone Appointment Excuses

-      Dodgy excuses are provided in ALL areas of life, by ALL people – this is common knowledge and any teacher, boss or lecturer will make this clear. Also, in this context, a discriminatory, unfair and inhumane legislative and policy framework means that those people who are targeted are too often left in desperate situations that require wrangling to get out of – and yes, sometimes the truth needs to be stretched, as it is in innumerable other situations, such as parking fines, sick leave, tax evasion, drink driving etc. etc. etc. This is clearly an example of ‘kicking people whilst they are down’ and exploiting the behaviour of marginalised people who are actually exhibiting very human attributes that are not unusual given the circumstances involved. Instead of focussing on the far more pressing concern of a discriminatory, unfair and inhumane system, Anex has instead scored cheap ‘laughs’ with excuses that not only DO NOT represent everyone who is prescribed methadone, but the excuses listed are new to me – I have never, in reality, heard of anyone using any of these excuses. As far as I am concerned, the list is a complete fabrication and is in no way the “retorts of an old hand”.

-      We now have evidence that stigma has negative effects on people’s health and stereotyping has been a ‘thorn in the side’ of the harm reduction sector since the beginning – this list flies completely in the face of the harm reduction ethos that has been developed under extremely difficult conditions over many years, including the soul-destroying but invaluable labour that drug users have undertaken. 

So let’s have a look at the actual list:

#1) There is nothing remarkable about this first excuse – that is, it bears no specific relation to the OST program. This is a mistake that could be made by anyone, in any situation, attempting to obtain something. However, by using such a ubiquitous example in this context, the implication is that methadone users are dim and conniving (and delusional in their ability to be conniving), possessing poor memories that are unable to recall the other occasions when the excuse was used. Furthermore, the extraordinary nature of the lives we lead, drug user or not, means that it is entirely feasible that a person may indeed have attended their mother’s funeral, even though it was used falsely on prior occasions, so this possibility needs to be considered and, given the sensitivity of the matter if the person’s mother had passed away, due sympathy provided.

#2) This one doesn’t actually make any sense whatsoever, as it is entirely reasonable that the door would be unlocked as it was only on this most recent occasion that the person realised that he/she didn’t have keys and therefore did not wish to leave the house unlocked. That is, either the person had accidentally left the house unlocked on the prior occasion or the person had only popped out for a brief while and had deliberately left the house unlocked due to not having keys – the house being unlocked on this previous occasion actually has no direct relationship to the person’s current predicament in which he/she feels unable to leave the house unlocked. However, the implication inherent to the list is that the person has been caught out with a glaring inconsistency that again shows how dim-witted the ‘perpetrator’ is. Furthermore, the person might then need to explain that circumstances have changed since his/her discovery that his/her keys are missing and it is therefore necessary to remain in the house (e.g. an expensive item is now present in the house, or the person fears that someone has actually stolen the keys and is looking to break in). It is worth pointing out that if the prescriber didn’t treat the consultation like a police interrogation in the first place and actually treated the person with dignity and respect, then maybe such details would emerge more easily and terse questions wouldn’t need to be asked.  

#3) Again, the most extraordinary things happen in life all of the time – this series of events is actually entirely possible. Apart from anything else, number 3 is not actually funny or humorous in any way and is just an example of how cringe-worthy the author of the piece really is.

#4) Not only is this excuse not funny, but what kind of worker would respond in such a nasty and sarcastic manner??? When treating a person respectfully, one doesn’t use offensive humour – this is a no-brainer, yeah? One would simply ask how much the school uniform is, or some other relevant question. The ‘worker’ in this situation deserves a verbal warning for such shoddy, harmful practice. Furthermore, why is it an issue that the person has only one child? Without further detail, this point is irrelevant – what is relevant is the cost of the uniform, the income of the person and what their weekly/fortnightly budget is. Again, the author proves her/himself to be the dim-witted, mediocre one.

#5) Again, I’m unclear as to why this is such a stand-out example of ‘client’ manipulation – there is a myriad of circumstances that could contribute to the person’s inability to traverse the city in just under 3 hours and a proficient worker would respectfully negotiate a solution with the person based on their individual situation. The message that really needs to get out there is the critical importance of working with each individual’s particular circumstances – not the insulting and outrageous garbage that occurs in this piece. This is also another example of bland, poorly-constructed ‘humour’.

#6) Yet again, why is this so outlandish? Anyone who has worked with illicit drug use for any length of time with half a brain in their head knows that the most extraordinary things happen to people. Read any edition of a Drug User Organisation magazine and this will become very clear. The salient matter that needs to be conveyed to workers is that people who use drugs are not all compulsive liars and that it is vital to develop respectful relationships so that genuine interactions can occur. If the OST dynamic could be along these lines, then not only would people on the program feel more comfortable to speak openly, but the atmosphere of suspicion and ‘us versus them’ would also dissipate. But alas, Anex has instead chosen to exploit this woeful state-of-affairs.

#7) See point #6).

#8) Big deal! So the person has slipped up in this scenario – who really cares? We are dealing with a ‘War on Drugs’, a continuing hep C epidemic, a worldwide HIV pandemic, fatal overdoses, amputations, endocarditis, imprisonment  etc. etc. and this is cause, instead, for an article revealing the inconsistencies of the perennially devious junky??? Furthermore, the policy and practice regarding takeaway doses verges on ludicrous and the persistent poverty that people endure is fair reason for the selling-on of doses – if people resort to this kind of dialogue then an ethical organisation would be seeking to find out what leads people in this direction. I guess Anex feels that it is more appropriate to have a cheap ‘laugh’ at the expense of the disadvantaged.      

#9) Maybe I am just cognitively compromised, but I fail to see the direct relationship between the fact that the person walked into the prescriber’s room and the issue of takeaway doses based upon the person’s statement that “I can’t walk”. The fair thing to do in this situation would be to find out exactly what the person means by this statement. Often, especially for marginalised people and people who have difficulties with open communication, statements need to be picked apart to find out what is actually going on. And in actual fact, over many years of working in this area, I have seen too much harm caused by workers and clinicians jumping to conclusions, being presumptuous and not adequately listening – these are the most important concerns that should be relayed to Bulletin readers.

#10) Ahh.., unless the prescriber also has a degree in veterinary science, what right does he/she have to dispute this statement? Also, can someone please explain to me, in a sector pushed for resources, what the great value is of going to the trouble of writing and then publishing an interaction about a person’s sick dog???  Is it just me, or should people be using their time far more constructively???

The opiate pharmacotherapy system in Australia is incredibly dysfunctional and to then publish a list that reads like tabloid journalism or the blog of an ignorant userphobe is nothing short of disgusting and potentially cause for litigation, as occurred in Ireland and more recently with Victoria’s Andrew Bolt.

Certified Guarantee

This blog feels it is an appropriate time to inform any person who has graced its pages, briefly or at length, that Limit of Shunt: The War Against Inaccurate and Misleading Reporting on Drugs in the Media will at no point, ever, seek to derive any income or profit from its existence. This pledge also includes the creation, promotion and sale of any related merchandise, fundraising or product. Sure, if there is a worthy cause that is trying to generate much-needed funds, then this blog may decide to assist in awareness-raising, but for as long as it exists for the purpose that it exists for, this web-based resource has chosen to remove itself, as much as is possible, from self-serving, money-making conduct.

Thank you for your time and energy.

Tolerance a recipe for drug misery: Paul Sheehan

Settling in for a quietish Sunday evening just 'aint what it used to be and tonight's attempt has been overshadowed by the question of "who exactly is Paul Sheehan?" Should I even care? Well, the thought wouldn't have even crossed my mind, and I could have happily continued to ponder what kind of light bulb headgear I would choose if I do actually have a seasonal affective disorder, if it wasn't for his opinion piece in last week's Sydney Morning Herald.

Admittedly, I have never met the man and do not have the inclination to delve deep into his personal history, but is this possibly another example of a prominent individual disseminating opinions regarding currently-illicit drugs without the kind of credentials required for a statement of such magnitude? Surely not. With the kind of rhetoric that Sheehan has displayed in his May 9 article, it would be preposterous to even entertain the thought that he may have never spent a day in the Kings Cross "state-sponsored heroin injection centre" (as he labels it) and he must possess extensive insight into the drugs issue due to the countless hours that he has spent with both people who use such drugs and the seemingly tireless people who work with them. Unfortunately, I am yet to uncover the depth of such experience, but if any readers can steer me in the right direction, I would be most appreciative. Oh, and just to set the record straight Mr Sheehan, the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) has been established for the purposes of all drugs, not just heroin. That's okay, though - just make sure you don't slip up again the next time you are in there, avidly speaking with the staff and people who use the vital service.
 
As far as your opinion piece goes Mr Sheehan, I'm glad that you started with Stathi Katsidis as this should be yet another reminder to the hordes of wonderful folk out there that drug use should not be confused with 'XTREEM SPORTS'. Hell no; there is no need for anyone who chooses to experiment with whatever substance to prove to the world that they possess the drug-using equivalent of the 'real man' inside them. Apart from obvious safety concerns, no-one actually cares, yeah? There is not a lot more tedious than being at a party gently nursing a once-lonely beverage whilst some guy in designer jeans decides that you will develop character after hearing about his seemingly endless exploits trying to take the most amount of whatever drug in different settings regardless of the impact upon other people and places. It's often best to keep nodding and ensure that you have not been cornered.

Anyway, back to Mr Katsidis. According to Sheehan, this tragic story involves a 12-hour binge involving the following list of substances: GHB, MDMA, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine and shit-loads of alcohol. I know that readers will be shaking their heads in disgust as they wonder how I can be so callous, but seriously folks - surely it is fair to suggest that this might be overdoing it? I understand that certain drugs can vastly reduce inhibitions, leading to unhindered drug use, but what occurred on this particular occasion cannot be explained away in such terms - this unfathomable level of indulgence is clearly the result of something more. Katsidis was a jockey, with his brother being a boxer, and I can't help but wonder whether he approached drugs with the same adrenalin-fueled competitiveness that defined his day job. It also wouldn't surprise me if he was schooled in a male-dominated drug using culture where an ability to tolerate ridiculous amounts and combinations of substances equated to 'true manliness'. I've also seen this amongst male adolescents and without a broader culture where drugs are discussed openly, honestly and outside of the inconsiderate 'thrill-seeking' that is an outcome of illegality, we will probably never see a genuine, concerted response to prevent such destructive behaviour. To then merely point the societal finger at drugs, as Sheehan does, is not only inaccurate but serves to further perpetuate the problem as the public remains entrenched in their media-driven ignorance.

Sheehan then questions the term 'victimless crime' and I can't begin to imagine why this occurs in the context of the jockey's death. Who, in their right mind, would use this term in relation to the Katsidis incident? 'Victimless crime' is a term used in relation to the informed use of a substance by an individual who, like any nicotine, caffeine or alcohol user, is not seeking to harm anyone else. This individual is usually more than willing to contribute to society, pay taxes, pay for their chosen substance, inform themselves of side-effects and appropriate self-management techniques, and is also willing to cease or moderate use if harm is being caused to others (e.g. one's own children) - of course, the individual may also choose to not be a parent and live a life that isn't enslaved to the expectations of family members. But I'm sure Sheehan already knows all this. Instead of misusing the term 'victimless crime' Paul, you are way better off sticking with your clever 'death binge' term - because that is clearly what Katsidis' episode was.

Next up is a section that requires examination and analysis:

The collective wisdom of society is that the more permissive society is with dangerous drugs, the more dangerous drugs will be abused.

I believe the public is right on this fundamental point, and that the balance of evidence is clear: drug legalisation produces higher rates of drug use and drug abuse. Strong deterrence produces fewer drug users and less drug abuse.

It seems Sheehan isn't the only mysterious entity in this whole affair because I have no idea where this supposed 'collective wisdom' is stored and what it is derived from. Where is this 'balance of evidence'? The United States has the most notorious system of 'strong deterrence' in place and yet it has one of the highest rates of illicit drug use in the world, and Sheehan seems intent on further compromising his credibility in his contradictory subsequent paragraph, in which he asserts:

The problem for this argument is that not a single developed country has legalised the supply and consumption of hard drugs, for powerful reasons.

But hang on a minute Paul; you've just stated that the evidence is clear and that legalisation of drugs in this category produces higher rates of use and abuse, but yet "not a single developed country has legalised" their supply and consumption. I'm sure the two people following this blog are already certain that I have taken one whatever too many, but surely I'm not hallucinating here. If I'm not mistaken, the supposedly esteemed author here is claiming evidence based on a situation that he subsequently states has never existed; and it seems that he is stating that the situation has never existed for "powerful reasons" that are based on this 'balance of evidence' from the aforementioned non-existent situation. Wow - maybe I can just keep reading Paul Sheehan and 'trip out' instead of consuming illicit substances? So hang on Paul, let me first clarify something - do you actually understand what 'legalisation' means? And do you actually understand what people mean when they state that prohibition isn't working after fifty years due to the continued and often increasing use of illicit substances (i.e. use that occurs blatantly in the face of 'strong deterrence')? I'm honestly not trying to be patronising; it's just that it appears evident that you might need to consider these matters further, as informed individuals speak of 'legalisation and regulation', whereby currently-illicit substances are brought into a more controlled framework and that instead of a 'more permissive' society, a 'more aware and in control' society is developed.

I love how Sheehan then throws in his one pitch at intellectualism - a reference to 'moral relativism'. Sheehan writes:

Moral relativism encapsulates several mantras which favour victimology: social disadvantage is the root of social problems; addiction is a disease not a crime; prohibition drives crime, not consumption; underground markets drive underground behaviour.

As you probably are already, I am exhausted by this point in the piece. Not only is Sheehan's dismissal of moral relativism a justification of a dangerous over-simplification where one can rightfully equate paedophilia with illicit drug use merely because they are both 'crimes', but he is implying that drug consumption alone drives crime. When was the last time that someone exclaimed, "Gee, I just can't explain it. As soon as I have a toke on a joint, have a taste of heroin or do a line of coke I just can't restrain the urge to commit crime"? Sure, addiction is a strong predictor of crime, but consumption? Even then, why are we not asking the question of why people dependent on legal, reasonably-priced drugs are committing vastly less amounts of crime to support an innate practice? And how is acknowledging the truth that "social disadvantage is the root of social problems" favouring 'victimology'? The 'progressive politics' that Sheehan is so derisive towards are actually looking at the 'bigger picture', NOT abdicating responsibility for people caught up in social problems, and thereby aspire to prevent problems in the first place, instead of continually wasting time with 'band-aid' approaches. Obviously, in Sheehan's world there are those who are merely 'born bad' and the rest of us in the 'good' camp simply need to find a way to 'contain' them. Hmm, I can think of someone from the twentieth century who spoke of 'camps' and sought to 'contain' sections of the population... Oh, and of course not Paul - addiction is most certainly just a crime and has nothing to do with health-related, innate behaviour; and why in heaven's sake is it unreasonable to point out that "underground markets drive underground behaviour" when it is an innate behaviour that we are dealing with, further evidenced by America's experience during the alcohol Prohibition era? When something of this nature is criminalised, human beings don't just transform themselves - indeed, many end up following the market underground.

Sheehan wraps things up with his "alternative to the mantra of tolerance":

...when it comes to hard drugs, more tolerance creates more misery.


And all that he achieves is further proving that when all is said and done, Sheehan is just as confused as so many others on this issue. You will notice that prior to his 'alternative', Sheehan surprisingly presents the recent Portuguese decriminalisation initiative in a reasonable and positive light - isn't this a move towards greater tolerance?  In fact, I am certain this is a move towards greater tolerance. So with "a dramatic drop in drug-related deaths and infections", how in the hell has more misery been created? And in the midst of all of this, Sheehan unsurprisingly brings up the alleged 'holy grail' that is Swedish drug policy. I've actually taken a bit of time looking into this example and it seems that not only does Sweden have a significant injecting population who have fared worse off due to an outdated needle exchange policy (resulting in subsequent pressure by international bodies to improve matters), but the country experiences significant levels of harm regarding alcohol. In line with the over-simplification that Sheehan seems to revel in throughout this op-ed, the author's reference to Sweden provides no insight into the other settings where being 'tough' has had disastrous consequences. I mean, regardless of the illicit drug use that continues in the country, all that Sweden has really achieved is to exert control over the types of drugs that it's populace is dependent upon; and if Swedes are not dependent upon the once state-produced Absolut vodka or snus, then surely making them illegal would rid the country of all substance-related problems, no?

Dear Mr Paul Sheehan, thank you kindly for your contribution to the continuing discourse on illicit drugs and their use, but for future reference, it may have been more worthwhile to have employed the title, 'Misunderstanding and over-simplification a recipe for drug policy debacle'. Warm regards, Limit of Shunt.

Cambridge Post: Radical Call by Top Cop

The Cambridge Post from Australia’s sole western capital city is a curious publication in the media landscape – the suburban newspaper remains independent and privately owned since its humble domestic origins in 1977.  Now I don’t know if such beginnings have influenced the Post’s particular brand of journalism, but an article in this week’s edition presents a refreshing attitude; seemingly free of sensationalism and primarily interested in simply presenting the stated, non-judgmental viewpoint of its central figure, Western Australian Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan. Interestingly, O’Callaghan’s son, Russell, was featured in Victoria’s Herald Sun when he was injured in an explosion at an alleged ‘drug lab’ – on that occasion, the Commissioner also seemed to avoid stigmatising language and participation in an established culture of blame.

In the Post front-page piece, O’Callaghan does the unthinkable and proposes a move away from a strict enforcement mindset and asks his audience to consider the importance of a preventative framework whereby disciplines such as “child-care” and “health-care” are provided equivalent attention:

“Police work is at the bottom of the stream, we pick up the debris and scoop it away,” he said. “They do not prevent anything getting into the stream."

And then to consolidate the mini-coup, O’Callaghan then lets us know to what degree he minds what others think of his informed opinions:

“I do not care much if government does not support me, but I like to put my opinion out in the public domain. It is a job where you walk a tightrope.”

It needs to be said that Limit of Shunt is excited that Commissioner O’Callaghan will be joining AIVL’s (Australian Injecting & Illicit Drug Users League) Executive Officer at the ANCD (Australian National Council on Drugs) boardroom table and has its fingers crossed that tea and pastry won’t be the only things exchanged amongst participants.

However, as is the modus operandi of this blog, there needs to be a little elaboration with regards to the following significant section of the Post article:

"Mr O’Callaghan said decriminalising drugs might save money on policing but more would be spent in different sectors and the community would have to be prepared to deal with people affected by drugs."

With all due respect to all parties involved, I just don’t want heavily-tanned surfer mums sitting under umbrellas on Scarborough Beach thinking that O’Callaghan’s cautionary statement is a fair reason for why changes to Australia’s prohibitionist drug laws should not take place. The matter also digs at the heart of the drug law reform issue and has broader implications that affect anyone who engages with the ‘War on Drugs’. Unfortunately, the complexity of such concerns will never be elucidated in the current media climate as journalists in the 21^st century are always searching for bite-sized media ‘nuggets’ and it’s a shame that Walter Cronkite would join me in lamenting if he could still be with us.

Not only is the community already well-used to dealing "with people affected by drugs", but it is critical when attempting to conceive the progression of drug legislation that the following are considered:

• Humanity has never experienced a legal framework whereby all of the drugs currently available have been licitly managed and we do not have the luxury of referring to the trajectory of other civilisations on other planets – humans are learning as we go with only our own history to go by. Not only does this require policy decisions to be well-considered and circumspect, but it also provides us with the freedom to be innovative, as we are not locked into any particular formula apart from the humanistic values that the majority of people try to embrace.

• A review of Prohibition is in accordance with standard practice in all areas of vocation and legislation. It is a simple matter of reflecting on practice and seeking ways of improving on what has gone before – we are not talking about an incredibly complex concept here. Reflection is also something we all do individually and is a practice that indicates insight and strength of character, especially when a person re-evaluates their practice when things aren’t working in order to do better next time. That is all this blog, along with other supporters of drug law reform, is asking – matters have deteriorated significantly on a global scale so we are required to reassess, and this inevitably involves trying different approaches that can always be recalled or tweaked if they don’t make a difference.

• Alternative approaches do not merely involve free and widespread access to all drugs, nor do they promise the allure of a ‘black market’-free, harmless utopia.

• Alternative approaches need to be based in the fundamental premise that the use of substances to alter thinking, behaviour and experience is an innate feature of human existence and must therefore be managed accordingly.

In light of the aforementioned points, society needs to understand and accept that we have the freedom to be innovative and creative in the drugs arena. Once we have accurately comprehended the place of drugs in humanity we can then decide which drugs we legally manage, who has access to them, what are the conditions of this access, where such drugs are available, in what setting these drugs are to be taken, what options are available for people who have difficulty with a licit system, and so on. In the same way that prohibitionist laws are not set in stone, there is no exact formula for alternative drug policy – the only solid foundation that we need to work from is that drug use is innately human, and will therefore not disappear in the foreseeable future (there is a very, very, very, very, very strong likelihood that it will never disappear), and that we need to work from sound evidence rather than nebulous histrionics.

So it is quite likely that in a regulated framework a ‘black market’ will continue to exist, and ambulance call-outs will still happen, and police will still be breaking down front doors. Because the whole point of changing the drug laws is to attain greater control of yet another aspect of ourselves – I guess you could call it a step towards greater self-control. And as a consequence of this, there will be tight regulations and, as a result, there will be individuals who will not be granted access or unlimited access to certain substances for a range of reasons (e.g. age, psychological examination results, past history etc.), and these people may constitute patronage for an illicit market. But on the flipside, the illicit market will be significantly smaller and less powerful than it currently is, the people who are responsibly using whatever drug are not unfairly persecuted, the people who are irresponsible or who experience problems aren’t stigmatised and can access appropriate help, the impact on the broader community is lessened (crime etc.), virus rates for hepatitis B, C and HIV are greatly reduced and the dollars spent on the drug war can be channelled into the areas that Karl O’Callaghan has mentioned. With regards to the people who continue to break the law within such a framework, we can fairly state that such individuals require treatment or intensive support or rehabilitation or even imprisonment – you see, the problem with the current system is not that such responses exist, but that the ‘same brush’ is used against everyone, accompanied by inhumane and unacceptable hysteria that has resulted in death, suffering, misery and disease on a grand scale.

And if the trial of whatever alternative approach does not work then, as ‘best practice’ dictates, we can reflect upon what occurred and try something different  based upon evidence – in one respect, this is not rocket science ladies and gentleman, and we don’t need to make it more difficult than it needs to be. We have the power to pave the way for a better future because we are the only ones responsible for writing history and we should therefore embrace this marvellous privilege and make the most of it in order to have the best time possible in the single lifetime that we have access to. Don’t you think this is reasonable?  As for your good self, Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan, I wish you all the best in your endeavours with the ANCD and I hope that your son undergoes a trouble-free and enlightening recovery.