Covert Communication Podcasts
Drug Policy Beyond 2008
Firesnake
Between July 7 - 9 this year, NGO's from around the world, representing nine regions, met in Vienna for a forum on drug policy and related harms. Their purpose was to meet two resolutions passed at the UNGASS on Drug Control in 1998. Simply put, NGO's were to review the past ten years of drug policy and advise on the future. The Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs notes in it's 'background' [to the forum]; Apart from the Member States' commitments and pledges adopted on June 10, 1998; the General Assembly, directly or indirectly, called upon NGOs to work closely with governments and others in assessing the drug problem, identifying viable solutions and implementing appropriate policies and programmes. On July 9, 2008 all participants adopted the "Beyond 2008 Declaration" which is available in 11 page PDF format here. The text of the final declaration will be presented in March 2009, at the next high level segment of The Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As one would expect there was resistance to Harm Reduction, Harm Minimisation and agitation for tougher measures, erosion of rights and a continuance of 'war on drugs' ideology. Thankfully, this was the minority. As we hear in this podcast, the 'official' Nth. American delegation exercised their typical bullying tactics to prevent open reporting - previously permitted by the organisers - and by day two, succeeding. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union suggest June Sivilli of the White House Drug Office - the ONDCP - advised the hard-line delegates and prevented their previously authorised filming of the plenary. The "pro-drug" nature of discourse was concerning it appears. On the other hand, as Sanho Tree from the US Institute of Policy Studies notes, the USA would have previously been able to prevent much of the forum process and transperancy from even being realised. From Stop The Drug War.org: "Of the nine regions of the world, only North America sent two delegations. The first, which had met in St. Petersburg, Florida, in January, deliberately excluding harm reduction and drug reform groups, was the "official" delegation, representing hard-line prohibitionist organizations aligned with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, such as the Drug-Free America Foundation and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), the California Narcotics Officers Association, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals." "The second North American grouping, which had held its regional meeting in Vancouver in February, included dozens of organizations in drug reform and harm reduction, as well as treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation groups. Among the organizations from the Vancouver meeting that went to Vienna were the ACLU Drug Law Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Virginians Against Drug Violence, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the Harm Reduction Coalition, Break The Chains, and the Institute for Policy Studies." They also succeeded to alienate many delegates and NGO representatives, as we hear in audio from Vienna in this episode. As did Drug Free Australia's Gary Christian speaking for the Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy. Seizing the final moment to claim the process had been less democratic than would suit his need to overlook human rights for the greater good of zero tolerance, Mr. Christian has loudly proclaimed his tactic for ignoring the Resolutions: the process was flawed and undemocratic. Ergo; why respect the need for increased harm reduction? The entire charade embarrassed and outraged the Australian and NZ contingent, and was noted by Committee Chair Michael Perron as a "final potential disaster". He also complained about the selection process which is proved to be a false concern on page 42 of the Australian and NZ report. Overwhelmingly, the call for increased harm reduction, input from drug users, NGO's and policy regulators went out and is reflected in all nine regions, not least by a long shot, the Aussie/NZ contingent. The selection process involved consultation with two members of the ANCD. Perhaps reflecting two ideologies, or anticipated arguments? Drug Free Australia Executive Officer, Jo Baxter is on the ANCD board. I'd say the selection process was entirely fair and representative. Mr. Christian is intent to prove himself an ongoing thorn in the side of human rights for drug using communities. The Transnational Institute published their review under, Beyond 2008 - A truly remarkable event. They did not miss the significance of an overwhelming rejection of prohibitions harms. After all, the issue we had to agree existed was simple, self evident and radical, all at once: prohibition is a failure which harms our communities and innocent human beings, more than the drugs we prohibit. No candy for guessing that ideological differences elicit fierce debate or that legislation reflects the aims of elites at the time. That's how we got in this mess. That's why some elite institutions blame "drug industry elites" for present problems and conspiracy to seize control. Politically, there's an entire imperative in the semantics alone. The candy goes to pragmatism, and I think T.I. chose the word "remarkable", well. Drug Policy is an area that makes Western democratic disputes over religion and politics seem cosy. The struggle of minorities is a human rights issue. The clash between criminality and health is a moral crisis for many, and for disparate reasons. So I was interested that they noted, "Would it really be possible to agree by consensus on a joint declaration and resolutions? Well, we did itâ" Also; "As was to be expected, many issues triggered complicated debates, but after a first worrying day gradually a mood of consensus-seeking started to grow. Where sharp disputes appeared in the plenary, the issue was deferred to an informal drafting group to come up with compromise language. In those corridor meetings long and sometimes tense negotiations took place on issues such as harm reduction, definitions of âdrug useâ, âillicit useâ, âmisuseâ and âharmful useâ, the involvement of most affected groups including drug users in policy making, the unintended negative consequences of the current drug control system, the eradication of drug-linked crops in absence of viable development alternatives, etc." Nonetheless. This was a hugely significant achievement. Danny Kushlick, of Transform UK, proffered the impending end of prohibition at 2015 - 2018. "2009 will pass with no change", he wisely reminds us. According to the United Nations Information Service, in Civil Society Gives a Voice to Those Most Effected; "Three key themes have emerged from the deliberations: Shared responsibility and accountability. Governments, at all levels, need to leverage the experience, reach, professionalism and passion of NGOs. In the past five years NGOs have become more focused, disciplined, inter-connected and organized around how to take on this global problem. NGOs are well placed to contribute - but only if their experience, reach, impact and commitment is engaged. As Eva Tongue, Chairperson of the Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs commented in her opening remarks "Money alone is not enough. Governments need to recognize that the fieldwork done by the NGOs is fundamental to success in all aspects of this matter." Giving the most affected a voice. This is an issue that has to be addressed at the human level. The Declaration and Resolutions represent many different voices - individuals, families, and communities - from around the globe. This voice needs to be heard because it brings a fundamental understanding on how to achieve demonstrable progress to reduce illicit/harmful drug use and its adverse health, social and economic consequences. Beyond 2008 Forum has created a call for action. The Declaration and Resolutions are just the start. It is a commitment by all of the participants to build on what was achieved here in Vienna as they return to their work and engage with their governments. The Declaration and Resolutions coming from the Beyond 2008 Forum has a created clear consensus from NGOs. In his closing remarks to delegates, Mr. Perron said: "As we go back to our communities and responsibilities let us go knowing that our commitment to consensus over the past three days has created the opportunity for civil society to have a substantive voice here in Vienna." This episode Firesnake looks at the forum process and controversies therein. We check out documents highlighting the most common themes and hear from attendees who express concern at "the bullying" of anti-Harm Reduction or Drug War proponents. We hear of hopes before the forum and the welcome outcome despite lively debate, covert tactics to sabotage harm reduction and the obvious attempts by the USA to continue the illusion it's sustainable war, is working. The unfortunate failure to get drug users themselves as contributers to the final resolution text, is balanced by the fact drug user organisations now have a place at the table and can only advance human rights from there. Thanks to all below who attended and gave up their time to be interviewed on their own view of proceedings. Special acknowledgement to Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. Danny Kushlick, Transform UK. Martin Jelsma; Transnational Institute, The Nethlerlands. Kristopher Krane; Students for sensible drug policy, USA. Alan Clear; Harm Reduction Coalition, USA. Andrea Efthimiou-Mordaunt; International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS - John Mordant Trust, UK. Elias El Araaj; Soins Infirmiers et Development Communautaire, Lebanon. Monica Luppi; San Patrignanno Foundation, Italy. Geoffrey Evans Drug Free Schools Coalition, USA. Caitlin Padgett; Youth Rise: International network for reducing drug related harm. Ahmed Al-Shatti; Kuwait National Anti Narcotic Drug Committee, Kuwait. Tripti Tandon; Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, India. Lennice Werth; Virginians Against Drug Violence. Michael Perron; Chair - NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna and Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Walter Cavalieri; Canadian Harm Reduction Network. Sanho Tree; Institute for Policy Studies, USA. Mike Trace; International Drug Policy Consortium, UK. All articles touched on are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags. 49 min. 15 MB. read less
Latest Episodes for this Channel
Drug Policy Beyond 2008
Sun July 27 2008
Between July 7 - 9 this year, NGO's from around the world, representing nine regions, met in Vienna for a forum on drug policy and related harms. Their purpose was to meet two resolutions passed at the UNGASS on Drug Control in 1998. Simply put, NGO's were to review the past ten years of drug policy and advise on the future. The Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs notes in it's 'background' [to the forum]; Apart from the Member States' commitments and pledges adopted on June 10, 1998; the General Assembly, directly or indirectly, called upon NGOs to work closely with governments and others in assessing the drug problem, identifying viable solutions and implementing appropriate policies and programmes. On July 9, 2008 all participants adopted the "Beyond 2008 Declaration" which is available in 11 page PDF format here. The text of the final declaration will be presented in March 2009, at the next high level segment of The Commission on Narcotic Drugs. As one would expect there was resistance to Harm Reduction, Harm Minimisation and agitation for tougher measures, erosion of rights and a continuance of 'war on drugs' ideology. Thankfully, this was the minority. As we hear in this podcast, the 'official' Nth. American delegation exercised their typical bullying tactics to prevent open reporting - previously permitted by the organisers - and by day two, succeeding. The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union suggest June Sivilli of the White House Drug Office - the ONDCP - advised the hard-line delegates and prevented their previously authorised filming of the plenary. The "pro-drug" nature of discourse was concerning it appears. On the other hand, as Sanho Tree from the US Institute of Policy Studies notes, the USA would have previously been able to prevent much of the forum process and transperancy from even being realised. From Stop The Drug War.org: "Of the nine regions of the world, only North America sent two delegations. The first, which had met in St. Petersburg, Florida, in January, deliberately excluding harm reduction and drug reform groups, was the "official" delegation, representing hard-line prohibitionist organizations aligned with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, such as the Drug-Free America Foundation and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), the California Narcotics Officers Association, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals." "The second North American grouping, which had held its regional meeting in Vancouver in February, included dozens of organizations in drug reform and harm reduction, as well as treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation groups. Among the organizations from the Vancouver meeting that went to Vienna were the ACLU Drug Law Policy Project, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Virginians Against Drug Violence, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the Harm Reduction Coalition, Break The Chains, and the Institute for Policy Studies." They also succeeded to alienate many delegates and NGO representatives, as we hear in audio from Vienna in this episode. As did Drug Free Australia's Gary Christian speaking for the Taskforce on Strategic Drug Policy. Seizing the final moment to claim the process had been less democratic than would suit his need to overlook human rights for the greater good of zero tolerance, Mr. Christian has loudly proclaimed his tactic for ignoring the Resolutions: the process was flawed and undemocratic. Ergo; why respect the need for increased harm reduction? The entire charade embarrassed and outraged the Australian and NZ contingent, and was noted by Committee Chair Michael Perron as a "final potential disaster". He also complained about the selection process which is proved to be a false concern on page 42 of the Australian and NZ report. Overwhelmingly, the call for increased harm reduction, input from drug users, NGO's and policy regulators went out and is reflected in all nine regions, not least by a long shot, the Aussie/NZ contingent. The selection process involved consultation with two members of the ANCD. Perhaps reflecting two ideologies, or anticipated arguments? Drug Free Australia Executive Officer, Jo Baxter is on the ANCD board. I'd say the selection process was entirely fair and representative. Mr. Christian is intent to prove himself an ongoing thorn in the side of human rights for drug using communities. The Transnational Institute published their review under, Beyond 2008 - A truly remarkable event. They did not miss the significance of an overwhelming rejection of prohibitions harms. After all, the issue we had to agree existed was simple, self evident and radical, all at once: prohibition is a failure which harms our communities and innocent human beings, more than the drugs we prohibit. No candy for guessing that ideological differences elicit fierce debate or that legislation reflects the aims of elites at the time. That's how we got in this mess. That's why some elite institutions blame "drug industry elites" for present problems and conspiracy to seize control. Politically, there's an entire imperative in the semantics alone. The candy goes to pragmatism, and I think T.I. chose the word "remarkable", well. Drug Policy is an area that makes Western democratic disputes over religion and politics seem cosy. The struggle of minorities is a human rights issue. The clash between criminality and health is a moral crisis for many, and for disparate reasons. So I was interested that they noted, "Would it really be possible to agree by consensus on a joint declaration and resolutions? Well, we did itâ" Also; "As was to be expected, many issues triggered complicated debates, but after a first worrying day gradually a mood of consensus-seeking started to grow. Where sharp disputes appeared in the plenary, the issue was deferred to an informal drafting group to come up with compromise language. In those corridor meetings long and sometimes tense negotiations took place on issues such as harm reduction, definitions of âdrug useâ, âillicit useâ, âmisuseâ and âharmful useâ, the involvement of most affected groups including drug users in policy making, the unintended negative consequences of the current drug control system, the eradication of drug-linked crops in absence of viable development alternatives, etc." Nonetheless. This was a hugely significant achievement. Danny Kushlick, of Transform UK, proffered the impending end of prohibition at 2015 - 2018. "2009 will pass with no change", he wisely reminds us. According to the United Nations Information Service, in Civil Society Gives a Voice to Those Most Effected; "Three key themes have emerged from the deliberations: Shared responsibility and accountability. Governments, at all levels, need to leverage the experience, reach, professionalism and passion of NGOs. In the past five years NGOs have become more focused, disciplined, inter-connected and organized around how to take on this global problem. NGOs are well placed to contribute - but only if their experience, reach, impact and commitment is engaged. As Eva Tongue, Chairperson of the Vienna NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs commented in her opening remarks "Money alone is not enough. Governments need to recognize that the fieldwork done by the NGOs is fundamental to success in all aspects of this matter." Giving the most affected a voice. This is an issue that has to be addressed at the human level. The Declaration and Resolutions represent many different voices - individuals, families, and communities - from around the globe. This voice needs to be heard because it brings a fundamental understanding on how to achieve demonstrable progress to reduce illicit/harmful drug use and its adverse health, social and economic consequences. Beyond 2008 Forum has created a call for action. The Declaration and Resolutions are just the start. It is a commitment by all of the participants to build on what was achieved here in Vienna as they return to their work and engage with their governments. The Declaration and Resolutions coming from the Beyond 2008 Forum has a created clear consensus from NGOs. In his closing remarks to delegates, Mr. Perron said: "As we go back to our communities and responsibilities let us go knowing that our commitment to consensus over the past three days has created the opportunity for civil society to have a substantive voice here in Vienna." This episode Firesnake looks at the forum process and controversies therein. We check out documents highlighting the most common themes and hear from attendees who express concern at "the bullying" of anti-Harm Reduction or Drug War proponents. We hear of hopes before the forum and the welcome outcome despite lively debate, covert tactics to sabotage harm reduction and the obvious attempts by the USA to continue the illusion it's sustainable war, is working. The unfortunate failure to get drug users themselves as contributers to the final resolution text, is balanced by the fact drug user organisations now have a place at the table and can only advance human rights from there. Thanks to all below who attended and gave up their time to be interviewed on their own view of proceedings. Special acknowledgement to Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. Danny Kushlick, Transform UK. Martin Jelsma; Transnational Institute, The Nethlerlands. Kristopher Krane; Students for sensible drug policy, USA. Alan Clear; Harm Reduction Coalition, USA. Andrea Efthimiou-Mordaunt; International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS - John Mordant Trust, UK. Elias El Araaj; Soins Infirmiers et Development Communautaire, Lebanon. Monica Luppi; San Patrignanno Foundation, Italy. Geoffrey Evans Drug Free Schools Coalition, USA. Caitlin Padgett; Youth Rise: International network for reducing drug related harm. Ahmed Al-Shatti; Kuwait National Anti Narcotic Drug Committee, Kuwait. Tripti Tandon; Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, India. Lennice Werth; Virginians Against Drug Violence. Michael Perron; Chair - NGO Committee on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna and Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. Walter Cavalieri; Canadian Harm Reduction Network. Sanho Tree; Institute for Policy Studies, USA. Mike Trace; International Drug Policy Consortium, UK. All articles touched on are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags. 49 min. 15 MB. read less
Drug War Disaster
Mon June 30 2008
The history of prohibition and the USA styled War on Drugs is a history of failure. Failure to meet primary aims in even a cursory manner. Failure to protect the health of the community. Failure to meet minimal cost effectiveness. Failure to protect economies. Failure to prevent global crime, vice and terrorism as a direct result of prohibiting certain drugs. Failure to resist corruption and above all, failure to respect basic human rights. This episode we look more closely at the current situation. At every step of legislation we can identify singular dynamics. From the banning of opium smoking - but only by Chinese immigrants - to the Harrison tax act, to Nixon's Vietnam troop saving "Drug War", to calls today for "tough on drugs" measures, one constant appears. The presence of the the religious right and the anti drug lobby, agitating for strict control of immoral/illegal behaviour. Profit and trade for governments/law enforcers and moral influence hence power for Christian institutions, have been apparent at many junctures. Nonetheless, from the mid 19th century through the 20th and up until today the level of addiction and problematic use has remained at around 1 - 1.3% of the USA population. Figures are almost identical for developed nations. The real drug problem is not drug use, it is the failure of prohibition and the control of such a large black market by criminals. From discriminating against immigrant labourer opium smokers in the 1800's to fully geosynchronised drone and satellite controlled commando raids on billion dollar cartels today, the level has remained at about 1%. Firesnake looks at the history of prohibition, the synthesis of heroin, morphine and the advent of the hypodermic along with the influence of wars. We review the large scale legal use of opiates in "tonic" and cough preparations, and the IV use of morphine that saw "white middle class women" the most common user in the 1800's. By the end of the 19th century the USA "Pure Food and Drugs Act" demanded manufacturers list ingredients on "patent medicines". This exposed a huge level of morphine use and addiction. The simple act of providing accurate information - and not warnings or threats - saw addiction drop markedly through this simple honest "education" strategy. People chose to manage this problem. Opiate and heroin addiction was treated as a medical condition until the 1914 USA Harrison Tax Act. This law circumvented the Constitutional right to imbibe any substance by linking prescription and use to taxation. The new crime of "possession" was born.Overnight a benign mode of behaviour became criminal, and was driven by the police, the anti drug lobby and the religious right. The significance of this cannot be overstated. We look at how a problem with wording around opiate prescription; "in due course of treatment", ensured the jailing of doctors. This led to a supreme court case, known as the Webb case, and precipitated outright prohibition of prescribing opiates for addiction - a centuries old practice. Thus "prohibition" was born. We cover the history in some detail and include an audio montage on prohibition and the "Drug Free World" we certainly don't have. We've laboured long and hard in the humble Firesnake holeplex and cobbled together an audio mashup with over 20 contributers from around the world. They speak on prohibition, illicit drugs, effects, policy, health, human rights, corruption, mandates, ideology, morality, the need for policy review and more. A word on lack of duplication. There are no repeated segments, no audio was pre-recorded. One sentence introducing UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa is repeated - once. The repeated "moral obligation" heard from one contributer is a collation of unique sequential components of answers to questions in an interview. None are repeats. Bronwyn Bishop just happened to comply by offering the same reply to each quesion, nicely qualifying her argument. All segments are out-takes blended together to give a unique perspective on prohibition. Voices include: Danny Kushlick; Dir. "Transform" UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world", Private interview.Tony Geoghegan; Dir. Merchants Quay Ireland - Private interview.Lieut. Jack Cole [Ret] Founder, LEAP - Private interview.Fr. Joe Kane; Chaplain, Reuters Island Jail. NY - Private interview.John McGroarty; Ret. Det. Chief Superintendent, Cardi Drugs Unit - Private interview.Ethan Nadelmann: Dir. Drug Policy Alliance, NY - Private interview.Matsukis Marios; Cypriot MP: Allied Democrats and Liberals for Europe - ADLE; EU Review "Towards a drug free world".Francis Wilkinson; Ret. Chief Constable, UK - Private InterviewSanho Tree: Dir. Institute for Policy Studies, Washington - Private interview.Chris Davies; ADLE MP, UK - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".Paul Hunt; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health - IHRA presentationPeter Sarosi; Hungarian Civil Liberties Union - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".Antonio Maria Costa: Ex. Dir. UNODC - Private interview.Dr. Philip Emafo; Chairman INCB - Private interview.Margaret Court; DFA Patron, Australia - Marketing AudioBoris Van Der Ham: ADLE MP: Netherlands - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".Bronwyn Bishop; Australian Liberal MP: out-take of interview out-take from "The Winnable War" podcastChristopher Hitchens [Author/Journalist]; USA Live TV interview, 2007Paul Gallagher; Firesnake - "Prohibition: The I.N.C.B." - podcastSophia In 'Tveld; ADLE Dutch MP: - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".Michael Heney; Investigative JournalistTony Abbott; Australian Liberal MP - Interview grab And more... Enjoy. All sources and articles touched upon are here.Music, thanks to Garageband. Gags. 1 hour. 27 MB. read less
Prohibition: The I.N.C.B.
Sun June 22 2008
In recent months the international condemnation of the War on Drugs has been apparent. The Allied Liberals and Democrats for Eurupe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, The 2008 Conference of the International Harm Reduction Association, European agencies, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, The Lancet and more have expressed the same concern. Concerns over tactics used to enforce punitive measures and criminalise modes of behaviour are not new. Reviews of the absurd UN initiative "Toward a Drug Free World by 2008 - we can do it" [Declaration] are unambiguous as to the failings of prohibition and the futility of the War on Drugs. The Executive Director of The UN Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], Antonio Maria Costa has called for a new focus on "the three HR's", Harm Reduction, Health Responses, and Human Rights. Prohibition has failed and the present legislation to combat illicit drug related harms ultimately equates to a war on people. More so, the reticence of the UN and the International Narcotics Control Board to admit problems exist combined with the ambitious claim of credit for "success", is widely condemned. Human rights breaches are clear and mandates for which each group, particularly the INCB, are responsible are ignored in favour of personal interests.As noted on Feb. 27th, 2007 in Closed to Reason;... the Board â a 13-person, ostensibly independent body that does not speak for the United Nations but is an integral part of the UN drug control system â has consistently cautioned against effective HIV prevention measures and failed to highlight critical shortfalls in the global response. Despite Australia's robust role in domestic and regional Harm Reduction there remains a vocal minority in favour of zero tolerance. Or rather, against Harm Minimisation. The misconception that HM is "pro drug" is common and reflected in "cloned" non-evidence based opinion pieces in Australia and Canada. Others point out the evidence in favour of increased Harm Reduction, noting the benefit to the entire community - who primarily support harm reduction. The shrill moral tone levelled at all minority groups continues apace with regard to drug users. As noted here often, Harm Minimisation is always finding itself under attack. The policy is poorly understood and a main sticking point is that it "accepts" the inevitability of drug use. Some don't like hearing this and go to great lengths to discredit HM. Usually for moral reasons or the ease of apportionment of blame: if we have a drug problem, it must be somebody's fault. Young adults are most vulnerable to this. As we become "post cognizant" we all see our parents, guardians, family as human beings - not omnipotent beings there for our egocentricity. With a history of drug use, violence and laxity over the rights to property ownership, it is axiomatic that guilt will arise. This can be managed or exploited. Young ex-users blaming everyone but themselves, claiming HM promotes drug abuse have experienced the latter. As most drug use does not led to harm, the problematic user is psychologically challenged to rationalise uncomfortable realities about themselves. The other concern thus, is the sheer momentum behind this idea as it's deliciously tempting for users and ex users to shirk responsibility and ultimately turn their energy to harming others - by undermining harm reduction. The primary driver of this activity is one's inability to cope with reality or accept responsibility. This promotes apportionment of blame, both personally and as an elemental "truth" for ones world view. We've touched on binary opposites here before. Defining the quality of X by focusing on the opposite qualities in Y. The Axis of Evil and WOMD's: weapons of mass destruction. Drug Industry Elites and WMOD's: wrong messages of destruction. For the politically astute, you'll recognise this as the neoconservative ['neocon'] philosophy, beloved by the GWB administration. The very fundamental ontology of the pro-abstinence/anti-HM/zero tolerance/Harm Prevention/Just Say No approach, is utterly dependent upon the flaws of "the other". There is nothing on offer that does not involve blame, punishment, revenge and worse. Positive values are defined by the malignancy of "the other", lending false validity to the "conquest" not otherwise proven by evidence.Yet, if the value of something demands the presence of an active, harmful entity what then occurs without an enemy, or in this case in the absence of supporting evidence?"The easiest way of uniting people is to have an enemy, and if you then split away from that enemy... you start looking for another enemy within your ranks ". Paul Hadley, Editor: The Church TimesSo, we still hear of absurd 'just say no' campaigns redressed as the "new" discovery outlined above. It is really simply the new face of the zero tolerance camp in the long running drugs debate. Despite all the evidence, all the suffering and all the inconsistencies, the attack on Harm Reduction serves only to endanger the "enemy within": all of us. This episode we look at why it's understandable, if wrong, to fall for this intuitive claim. We also examine the evidence and consider what the struggle of minority groups subject to use, abuse and far worse by others means for us in a democratic society. Do we still today have the luxury of ideological and subjective opinions? In the face of evidence to the contrary? HIV in IV users by region; pub.2006. Arguably the INCB have 'overseen' all rises except Australia, in which Harm Minimisation predominates. [Source]The human and social cost in delaying an immediate acceleration of harm reduction, implementation of needle exchanges in prisons, heroin trials for intractable users, and injecting facilities to match our over 1000 needle exchanges, is beyond unacceptable. However Australia's INCB representative argues another case [ABC]. To think in light of such clear data, our media misinform the public with compelling opinion pieces that play on emotions, not rationale, [still] is appalling. We see an MP use a privileged position to promote zero tolerance ideology. Previously argued by merit [page 2] of it's not being HM therefore not "soft on drugs". This tough on people approach is, well... now enshrined in a spectacularly futile "bong ban" in South Australia. Now we have little idea of what toxic plastics, chlorides, putties, heavy metals, glues, etc, smokers will use to make a bong, much less issues on cleaning and hygiene. This very issue attenuates the point at which moral panic serves no-one and costs the community. If anything, it's value is in the lesson that we must vocally and stridently object to exploitation of our parliamentary system. The net result will be wasted resources in piddling cases most of which may never reach court. Any chance to focus on quality control and carcinogenic materials could be lost. Such tokenism does nothing for drug related harms bar confuse expedient management with punishment. Given smoking chambers can be made from everyday items, including apples, we can accept the instigator is genuine in claiming HM "implants messages" that destroy us and that "bongs on display" is one such subliminal assault on our youth. Perhaps when inanimate objects start to control you, it is psychology, not policy to which we must turn. Nonetheless, this is supposed "proof" a conspiracy exists to legislate all drugs, keep our young addicted and profit "drug industry elites". The trendy new term given to those who've worked to keep Australia's health excellent, in the face of prohibition induced harms. Sadly, this is the level of "bipartisan discourse".Seeing as the rights of marginalised have come up, we should also note what generations of human rights jurisprudence can tell us. It is actually the real elites who can make such claims as supposed "default" truths, thus ensuring discrimination and ongoing elitism. Equal rights is about confronting and revealing elitism as the facade it is. The struggle in HIV/AIDS riddled Africa, Myanmar, South America, The Philippines, etc to ensure the uptake of condom use is one with an elite religious institution whose power base demands that it "knows the will" of our moral guardian. As this is impossible, we can see how decent human beings will behave in passively savage ways, blissfully sleepwalking to nowhere on the corpses of those who are expendable pawns.But this isn't about "them". It's about you, me and every free thinking independent individual in a democracy. We've been on this train before. Minority groups gain recognition. Opponents argue morally for the "head in the sand" approach, discriminating and marginalising fellow citizens without a second thought. Democratic rights come in leaps. Women had to fight for the right to vote, blacks for the right to not be segregated by law.Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton remind us of how important law reform and education are in moving progressive civilizations forward. Obama has now won the Democratic nominee position, once explaining he "did inhale - that's the whole point", in reference to the legion of public figures who puffed "pot", but never inhaled. Here we have three powerful pointers that serve to remind us, there really is no "other" and our way of life aims to realise this. Some alive today can remember a time when prohibition of drugs, politically active women or "colored people" running for any public office was unthinkable. We now understand the harms related to prohibition have prompted awareness of the need for change.We cannot see the juxtapositions inherent in prohibiting drugs, harming/punishing users and the path to corruption until we accept the rhetoric-come-propaganda stereotyping of drug users is a backward step for free society. At every juncture of democratic leaps, we can identify our religious right and puritanical watchdogs warning of our imminent doom. But no. It is the attempts to deny mounting evidence, and the cowardice in accepting it's import, that opens the door to doom. Doom for individualism, civil rights, the right to health, equality and freedom from harassment from others in positions of influence. Freedom from those who'd impose their will on others for personal gain, sometimes as "revenge" for immoral modernity and it's tolerance for individual expression. In what can be described as a win for democracy, drug users and human rights, the Supreme Court of B.C., ruled Canada's punitive 'controlled drugs and substances act' to be in breach of the Canadian Constitution. Health Minister, Tony Clement had aimed to close Insite, Vancouver's Safe Injecting Site precipitating an appeal. Judge Ian Pitfield expressed concern over the "unfettered discretion" present legislation placed in the hands of the minister. He ruled in favour of the facility giving Ottawa until June 30, 2009 to "rectify" the disparity with the right to medical treatment and the right to health, as per the charter of rights and freedoms. Firesnake looks at these issues and pays particular attention to the INCB, now under sever criticism for complicity in human rights breaches. The full scale of barbarism may be found in the references noted and linked to at the base of these notes. The unacceptable conflict of interest Australia faces, with INCB board member and DFA board member Brian Watters in a position to influence policy to suit his ideology cannot be ignored. Made up of individuals who serve their personal agenda, the INCB works in secrecy with accountability to no-one. This quote from the IHRA blog "HR2", reflecting on the INCB's failure to respect it's duty and implement pharmacological treatment in response to illicit drug use is a typical example;This will certainly come as news to the Russian Government, which prohibits methadone on the claim that it is illegal under the Conventions. As stated by Russiaâs Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Gryzlov in 2003, the countryâs prohibition of methadone was ânot the governmentâs own initiativeâbut rather the result of our responsibility to implement the UN drug conventions of 1961, 1971, and 1988.âJust the opposite, methadone is expressly allowed under all three Conventions according to the official Commentaries.It might also come as news to the International Narcotics Control Board, whose record of luke-warm support for methadone is chronicled in the excellent 'Closed to Reason' report produced by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Open Society Institute. [Source] - original emphasis.As we note, all evidence points to the INCB promoting drug related harms, shirking it's mandate in favour of "war" and undermining domestic success. We see it here in Australia. Attacks on the signifiers of HM continue without evidence, encouraging confusion and anxiety in the community. Recently DFA published material in two separate 'news pieces', initially written by outspoken biblical moralist, Bill Muehlenberg, attributing it to DFA Executive Officer, Jo Baxter. It was a careless dismissal of Wodaks proposal to examine cannabis regulation benefits. This very example iindicates that DFA have an agenda not related to drug related harms, but to moral deportment. Illicit drug related harms are secondary to behaviour. Both items remain prominent in the 'rolling news'. DFA snorted at requests for clarification. DFA officially claim "no religious affiliations". This insouciance isn't isolated. Recently published on DFA Watch was a reference to this blog as supporting war on drugs rhetoric, and on the new "interactive reefer madness". At the same time it added a page named "What's New?". The referenced blog now tops the DFA index - under the title "What's New!". Such contrariness is reactive, divisive and dismissive of any notion to "work with existing agencies"; practitioners of Harm Minimisation. A prior Chairman of the ANCD, Watters' recent scare tactics, reported by ABC, in selling an INCB report underscored how many Aussies use cannabis and highlights the insouciance of Watters self serving approach. The INCB mandate is to promote global HM - not reefer madness sensationalism - via implementation of the 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN Drug Conventions. It's wise to now regard INCB reports and claims with suspicion. Australia must begin to see itself on the global stage and understand the politics. Why this chap, at this time with the evasion of responsibility quite clear in the evidence discussed? And what of 'The Winnable War' recommendation #18 that the ABC use "standard" terminology when reporting on illicit drugs? It hasn't been adopted, but highlights how easily freedom is replaced with fear. What does that say about free thought, much less free speech?Well, if you fail to listen to this "pro-drug" episode and miss having messages implanted with the intent to "keep you addicted", you may never know. In this episode, we also examine expert comments referring to the INCB as a "relic from the past": a time of punishment and misguided belief in a winnable war on drugs.We also heard from Watters that QLD is Australia's primary source of methamphetamine production. Rather than offer any solution the point made was "governments have the power to change this"; an allusion to his wish to dismantle HM. If the good Mr. Watters understood the "balloon effect", he'd admit it is the result of offshore "wars" on production. Force down production in one area and another immediately picks in up. This statistical fact, proven time and again internationally, is testament to both the failure of and harms induced by, the so called war on drugs. Continue this until an entire region reduces production and domestic production spikes. If we note the evidence supports the INCB contributing to this, congratulating nations who abuse their public, enforce labor, death squads and sentences, jail all drug users and generally breach the INCB's responsibility to human rights, we have a right to demand better. Ironically DFA patron, Margaret Court includes the claim meth' labs are "toxic waste dumps" in her Scare repertoire. How bizarre it is that the result of the INCB failing to respect human rights and support outmoded "just say no" approaches, is to criminalise the entire health problem. Said differently, Watters and DFA support the very head in the sand approach that ensures "toxic waste dumps" and escalating large scale crime. Having done so this handiwork is then dressed up to amplify calls for more "toughness" on drugs [people].Sadly it is no secret DFA are strident critics of Harm Minimisation, demanding forced drug testing, random police searches, scare tactics, enforced detoxification - despite a four times greater mortality rate. Support for gagging the ABC such that "tough on drugs" messages dominate, closure of vital facilities based upon opinion alone and denial of education/evidence to vulnerable students on the basis of adult guilt, fear and ignorance. Sweden, the gold standard of zero tolerance, have just passed laws allowing unfettered eavesdropping on phone, internet and email communications [2] [ABC]. The implications of eroding civil rights this way are significant. One of DFA's key demands is unhindered policing and surveilance of all home computers, cell phones, vehicles, finances etc. If "cannabis finances terrorism" as we now hear from the extreme right, we can predict how this "monitoring" will be marketed here in Australia.Finally, we may also ask ourselves, in the face of evidence supporting regulation, why calls for open and honest discourse, immediately attract immature, sensational responses. This excuses moral panic. Surely a nation known for success in managing drug related harms and the spread of viruses is able to meet the challenge of uncomfortable questions. The argument Harm Minimisation encourages people to use drugs is false. It has no more import than claiming that Britney Spears' parenting issues have created an army of soon to be abusive parents. The difference is that tens of thousands of lives are ruined in the quest to "lock ourselves away" from reality. We do ourselves and our families a grave injustice by lying to them and disrespecting their intelligence and ability over such high stakes. Say no to prohibition.Articles mentioned are here. Music: Garageband. Gags. 70 min. 25MB. read less
Divine Dollars
Mon May 26 2008
Religion and money go hand in hand. Far from "spartan" conditions, or "vows of poverty" being implemented, we see palatial splendor. Firesnake looks at just why Australia seems to have an out of control monster, promising falsehoods and threatening eternal torment, funded by unwilling Australians. Indeed, we need only touch on a few - so called - "Christian" cons which are the tip of the iceberg. There's also a comedy intro with explicit language. Just so you know... A poll in Fairfax on April 27th 2008, suggests residents of the fair city to host the Vatican's Youth Love In are not as prayerfully considerate as promotional media grabs suggest. Writing in Crikey Bernard Keane noted, "... the majority of Sydney people had got jack of the Catholic Churchâs World Youth Day once they realised how disruptive it would be. While the men who run the worldâs premier institution of misogyny and paedophilia should never have been allowed to hold their medievalist frolic in public in the first place, the event has undoubtedly been affected by the Iemma Governmentâs Sadim touch". In God's Business - BRW June 29-July 5, 2006 - Adele Ferguson spells out the extent of religious tax exemptions. In doing so, she also exposes how opaque this self-righteous business really is. The pointy bit is this. Religious groups receive exemptions on income tax, GST, FBT, payroll tax [non-commercial], stamp duty [all property transfers], rates and land tax. Nor do religious groups pay capital gains tax from asset sales, tax on commercial businesses or observe any Banking Act rules where they would apply. As Ferguson puts it, "better still" once exemptions are granted specific to financial services. "There is no sunset clause or review by APRA of it's operations". Excluding donations, congregation and collection income, credit card machines or income from over 200 charities and additional business, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Uniting, Salvation Army, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist and the Pentecostal churches produced a miraculous revenue of $23.3 billion in 2005. The Catholic Church reaped a whopping 40.3%. Pentecostalism is growing faster than any religion in Australia, generating $263 million in 2004. Pentecostalism claims around faith healing and supernaturalism are of significant concern. It represents the pinnacle of con artistry, non critical thought and unguarded conformity. It's cost to the community is beyond significant. Hillsong are the largest earner in this fastest growing religion. Hillsong Emerge is the benevolent "arm" of Hillsong Church, once illegally using funds intended for Indigenous communities, for it's own benefit. Remember the disturbing link between Hillsong, Mercy Ministries, Gloria Jeans coffee shops, and medieval superstition? Sheer theft of money from vulnerable and disturbed Aussie girls who were then subject to exorcisms, bible classes and glossolalian ranting to cast out the demons that made them "evil" initially. The Age reported on this appalling abuse at the time. However, we don't need to be demon exorcising, bible quoting devotees to coerce ill people for no reason other than vague superstition. As Ferguson noted, "Hospitals run by the Catholic Church, for example, will not conduct vasectomies, tubal ligation or abortions, although they are routine in other public hospitals". Max Wallace from ANU says: âPeople in many parts of Australia are discriminated against by not having an alternative hospital provider.â [Page. 44] Sisters of Charity simply refuse to reveal revenue. And on the pattern goes. Of interest is that an April 23rd shin dig put on as a "gee thanks" by Cardinal Pell for former PM John Howard, included CEO of World Youth Day, Roy Wakelin-King on the 'confidential' guest list. Held at Pell's Pad - Cathedral House - in St Mary's Cathedral precinct in College Street, it was rumoured Kevin Rudd would drop in "for a chat". Pell who lunges forward with "Be Not Afraid" as his motto is the man who smoothed things over for a resolution to this silly business of the Roman Catholic Church paying for self indulgence. To satisfy the Jockeys Club for any manner of potential deficits from Pious partying at Randwick, Pell scooped $42 million from Howard. For the gig itself our Chief Magician appointee from Castle Vaticanus scored another $35 million. Remember this is his buddy who handed him $4 million for a Sydney campus at Notre Dame Uni. On the eve of the 2004 election. Leaked to Sunday papers, read just before the pews fill. The really strange thing is even when we know the ultimate terminus of where this train takes us, we fail to do the responsible thing. Category 12 funding is available via the Education Department Funding Scheme for "the poorest schools in the lowest-income communities in the country", according to one of the scheme's architect's Jim McMorrow. "They were meant to be very, very poor, with very, very low income, and largish average class sizes," he said, according to Fairfax papers. Despite the sect itself boasting of being "in the upper levels of the socio-economic group", The Exclusive Brethren's already notably wealthy schools continue to receive the "special" funding. A Brethren spokeswoman claims the payments were initiated under the Keating government. Of significant concern is the decision by the Rudd government to hand over $50 million in coming years. This is despite the schools failing to meet criteria noted above. Below are schools funded via Category 12 Special needs over 2001 - 04. Kulkarriya Community School, Fitzroy Crossing, WAThe Alice Springs Steiner School, Alice Springs, NTNyangatjatjara College, Yulara, NTBellhaven Special School, Young, NSWMansfield Autistic Centre, Mansfield, VICSt Gabriel's School for Hearing Impaired Children, Castle Hill, NSWMelrose Park School, St Marys, South Australia [$$$] MET School, Sydney, NSW [$$$] [$$$] - Brethren Schools. The Age continued; Education Department documents also reveal that the Exclusive Brethren regarded former prime minister John Howard as their most influential supporter and ally of last resort. In 2000, the sect's elders asked Mr Howard for special assistance on school funding because of his "sympathetic support in the past and the contact with you over the years". Federal school funding documents show that the Brethren's multi-campus NSW school, Meadowbank, and the South Australian school, Melrose Park, were funded at the same rate as "special schools", giving them the same per-student funding as Nyangatjatjara College, in the Northern Territory, the Giant Steps school for autistic students and schools for the hearing-impaired. The Brethren's MET school in Meadowbank does not meet the criteria for category 12 funding: it is in suburban Sydney, has small class sizes, and is financially supported by a community that boasts it has no poverty. The sect's Victorian school, Glenvale, which has campuses at Glenroy, Lilydale and Melton, receives a lower rate of funding. [Source] Other more benign disparities include the YMCA securing Recreation Centre contracts, not due to service quality, but due to tax breaks. With the above financial favour, the YMCA simply undercut non religious commercial entities, involved in the bidding for tendered contracts. In true religio-centric character the YMCA is one of a very few organisations to ignore qualifications and experience staff bring to public health and recreation needs. Pay, for example, is in the lowest income bracket for staff who have a fitness hobby certificate and those with science degrees and years of clinical experience. When we pay for "extra" services it's a mere marketing strategy we respond to. Ditto referrals from physiotherapists to community recreation centres. We have no idea if the individual provider at the YMCA is a professionally trained therapist or someone earning a few part time dollars. An identical national uniform serves to depersonalise the individual and add weight to the "team loyalty" con. Occasionally, this blinds the staff themselves. Many become convinced such poor income is "a necessary part of the job", focusing on free use of facilities and "community contribution" as their noble career path. Coerced philanthropy, perhaps? Join and we must pay by monthly or fortnightly direct debit. Stop attending and we alone must stop the debiting. In most cases it's the attrition of members that finances the centres. Fee paying members who don't attend always outnumber those who do. But that's fine as it is the accepted model in the health and fitness industry. Guilt and well meaning plans to "get fit" will ensure we do not cancel paying until long after we've stopped attending. And there's always the disincentive to stop paying in the huge joining fee we're continually reminded about. In fact, the YMCA go after profit like a struggling business. In an age of diseases related to lack of exercise, one may wonder why this Christian group is not feeling too charitable - despite massive financial help. A global organisation, the YMCA to probably afford to run our centres at no loss, as a favour to a sports keen nation. But such financial realities apply to all religious affiliates - great and small. It's always been about the money. Nothing but the money. Staff, clients and the Great Aussie Fair Go are used or abused to advantage in keeping ahead, as it were. For a mere fraction of the above, religions in Australia, Pell, Baptists, Brethren Elders, Cults, Catholics, business savvy Seventh Day Adventists, "Drug Free" Scientologists/Evangelists, Harley riding con artists, Christian City, Teen Challenge, greed focused magic working Pentecostals - and more - have much to smile about. This of course, is only topped by the rise of fundamentalism in all it's lethal malignant glory. And still, we keep on paying... All articles touched on and other posts are here.Music thanks to Garageband.NB: Explicit Language at beginning.The YouTube URL of George Calin's act is;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9oGags.31 min.14 MB. read less
Implanting Morality?
Fri May 16 2008
The Medical Journal of Australia recently published a paper entitled, Unplanned admissions to two Sydney public hospitals after naltrexone implants. The conclusion relating to the use of implants in blocking opioid receptors thus the effect of opiates such as heroin, in treating addiction, was straight forward: These severe adverse events challenge the notion that naltrexone implants are a safe procedure and suggest a need for careful case selection and clinical management, and for closer regulatory monitoring to protect this marginalised and vulnerable population. An editorial critical of the TGA's failure to monitor the outcome of what is essentially exploitation of the Special Access Scheme was published in the same issue. The scheme is designed to allow access to medication not otherwise available for terminally ill patients. The medication must have a proven unique ability to manage the symptoms in question. This is not the case for naltrexone implants which are being used in unregulated settings as an alternative to other - proven - treatments for opiate addiction. Indeed, it is this legal loophole via the TGA that acts as a deterrent for naltrexone proponents to report adverse reactions. From ABC's The Health Report April 21st, 2008: Paul Haber: My colleague Dr Nicholas Lintzeris and I are basically in charge of the Medical Drug and Alcohol Services at Liverpool and RPA hospitals. We realised that there had been quite a number of patients admitted to the emergency departments of both hospitals with problems after having these naltrexone implants. Norman Swan: What did you do? Paul Haber: We communicated with emergency department staff and with our own nursing staff to get a list of the patients that they had been consulted about and then got some information from the files and put it altogether. Now the important point is that there's no sort of red buzzer that goes off when this incident occurs so we don't necessarily have a complete listing of every case that came to our hospitals. Norman Swan: So what we're talking about here is a minimum? Paul Haber: Absolutely, we've certainly had one case since completing this report and we also know that not every case goes to hospital and certainly not going to these two particular hospitals. [Source] A co-authour of the editorial commented. "It is concerning that the recent research on naltrexone implants in Australia has not followed usual scientific processes," Associate Professor Robert Ali, Director of the Drug and Alcohol Services Council in Adelaide, said. Reminiscent of Gibson, Degenhart and Hall's paper Opioid overdose deaths can occur in patients with naltrexone implants [MJA, 2007; 186: 152-153], this latest data caused similar responses and academic discussion over methodology. The responses to Gibson et al are interesting and indicate how difficult an area to clarify this is. Simply put, how does one die and what role - if any - does naltrexone play? I'd point out the following; If someone died "from" the implant it would require a scenario in which reasons for IC admission went untreated: renal failure, dehydration, metabolic acidosis.If someone dies from opiate toxicity due to a faulty implant, it heralds poor technology and monitoring. Eg; it's a two month wait for blood level test results in Perth, poor technique: insertion may be incomplete [not all tablets successfully inserted]. If someone dies from opiate toxicity after cessation of treatment, then it raises questions about the treatment in total, and suggests poor follow up or ineffective counseling. Reasons for using are not addressed in full by blocking cravings. If someone dies from opiate toxicity with an active implant, and toxicology reveals other CNS depressants, it may go unrecorded as poly-drug toxicity can be argued as COD. Finally, if someone dies of obvious opiate toxicity, in circumstances familiar to emergency services, there is no reason to then confirm if an implant is active, faulty or inserted in the first place. The COD would be opiate toxicity and variables related to the implant not recorded. Hence, anecdotally there is some confusion regarding "deaths from naltrexone treatment", as it is often noted. However this paper did not deal with deaths - only admissions. And symptoms were quite severe, including metabolic acidosis, renal failure, dehydration, prolonged and profound withdrawal symptoms, vomiting, diarrhoea, confusion, delirium etc with some requiring Intensive Care. We can see from above we're talking about the failings of the implant, hygiene, monitoring and perhaps poor methodology in calculating naltrexone dose. It's done via Body Mass Index. Yet it may well be ambitious to think body size equates strictly to neurophysiology and genetic predisposition to neuropharmacodynamics - how drugs effect the individuals brain. Nonetheless as with all things involving naltrexone, the opportunity to observe abstinence proponents defend an ideology, in the face of evidence, presents itself. Close, chronological examination of one vocal proponent, in light of ongoing problems and previous fatalities is cause for concern. Dr. Albert Stuart Reece has been the focus of attention in the humble Firesnake Holeplex before. On this occasion another response to the denial of evidence relating to naltrexone implants. He offers no evidence - just promises. In looking for reasons why Reece may ignore contrary evidence one finds the theme of fundamental conservative morality. It's as if Reece wants to excise "immoral" Harm Minimisation and implant morality... In this episode, Firesnake looks at the rebuttal from Drug Free Australia to the MJA findings. Australia could be the biggest loser. You can read the response here. There's an extensive reply at the Drug Free Australia Watch blog. Citing "important contemporary evidence" and quoting Dr. George O'Neil and Dr. Stuart Reece in support of the W.A. implant trials, we are promised upcoming positive data in "the world's leading medical journals". It has actually been submitted for review and it remains to be seen as "a truly significant achievement", as Dr. Reece claims. In fact Reece has promised these "radically superb", "brilliant" implants are the "best in the world" and "statistically powerful results" will follow. However, he said that 15 months ago in his submission to the Inquiry on the Limits of Harm Minimisation. "The outcomes of this trial are already very obvious. They will be brilliant, and in addiction medicine, as radically superb as the HPV vaccine has proven in infectious disease control in that discipline", he said in his Parliamentary Submission. Methadone itself came in for particularly vicious and unfounded criticism. Whilst Reece is prone to claim the presence of drugs other than opiates causes overdoses in naltrexone patients - when the implant fails - he's also prone to claim the opposite applies to methadone. He reasoned that 78 methadone related deaths were really 851 because the presence of other drugs meant "the figure should be clarified". [Page 5]. Or rather, dismissed. "Therefore the problem is not one of evidence or safety assurances - those determinations have already been made by the many reputable and highly skilled clinicians who have used the devices, invariably with superb results". [Pages. 14-15] How is progress going? Well, despite DFA's claims, Norman Swan noted on April 21st, 2008; Anyway going back to the alleged harm from naltrexone implants, this isn't the first time there's been disturbing news about them. A paper in the last few days from Western Australia has admitted to some long term problems and last year Louisa Degenhart was a co-author of a paper, again in the Medical Journal of Australia, which described deaths. [Source] Firesnake has taken interest in the moral conservatism of the religious right and it's propensity toward abstinence. It's argued that fundamental religious beliefs can have an adverse effect in the public health domain in the quest to enforce morality over evidence. It's further argued the global involvement of certain naltrexone proponents in anti HM propaganda is well demonstrated and this conflict of interest makes for poor integrity and objectivity from DFA and their "fellows". Drug Free Australia don't so much present evidence on Harm Prevention successes, as present attacks on Harm Minimisation as the self evident cause of our drug problem. Attacking the signifiers of Harm Minimisation as malignant is done over and again, rather than promote the socially unpopular strict conservative moralism, that is the assumed alternative. We follow the loyal devotion to abstinence of Dr. Stuart Reece from 1990 quotes beloved by the International Abstinence Association on the moral decline of society [bold mine]; Clearly the âway forwardâ is in some respects also the way back, to the traditional virtues which have always been shared by stable, self-perpetuating civilizations. Clearly we need together and internationally to turn from the immature selfish and self-centred hedonistic delirium which saw the explosion of various serious disorders manifested by rising trend lines in many nations and were heralded by unsafe modern contraception and followed by its many ideological offspring and cousins including condoms, needles and syringes, methadone and values-free value-less so-called âeducationâ programs in many fields, and begin to deal with the core problems and the root social mythologies which support them and which are clearly rooted in indulgent attitudes of the human heart. [Source] Enduring the "hedonistic delirium" of modern democracies, Reece threatened the QLD government, claiming they'd "have blood on their hands" if he couldn't prescribe naltrexone - September, 1999. He got his way. By the last week of May 2001, 25 patients were dead and the QLD medical tribunal launched an inquiry into "gross negligence", also noting his breaching guidelines regarding pregnancy. From ABC The 7:30 Report - 4 June 2001: ANNE REYNOLDS: He was very, very passionate. He was very enthusiastic about his program. He was very adamant that it was The best thing available, nothing else was as good as Naltrexone. SIMON ROYAL: Anne claims Naltrexone treatment left her son with chronic depression and a new addiction to antidepressants. Six hundred days after his course of Naltrexone tablets, Paul Reynolds took heroin again.It killed him. Anne is flying back to London after interring her son's ashes. ANNE REYNOLDS: He's doing it without the right - enough support.He's sending them back into the world with just the families to care for them without the rehabilitation process in place. He seems to think that he has all the answers and he doesn't. He's one man. [Source]. He was defended by Dr. David Hunt who, claimed the death rate was similar to methadone. But a 2005 study at NDARC noted over 2000 - 2003 naltrexone had a death rate associated with it, four times that of methadone [Page 49]. Hunt, along with Reece and O'Neil, appears in a thank-you list in the anti methadone, pro naltrexone, pro "bible classes" Trophy of Grace. Written by Bronwyn Healy who now holds a place on Youth for a Drug Free Australia. Total Mortality per 1000 Episodes, 2000 - 2003 [Source]:Methadone: 102,615 treated. 282 related deaths. Total Mortality = 2.7Naltrexone: 3,169 treated. 32 related deaths. Total Mortality = 10.1Two years later the Inquiry was indefinitely adjourned, Reece had hurt feelings and claimed "vindication" from a "conspiracy between drug addicts and The Courier Mail". Three months later on September 14 2003, he was on Sunday Nights with the ABC, claiming Dr. God was the one in control and that "faith cures addiction". Remember, it's not what one believes we're noting. It's what one does with it. In Februrary 2007 Dr. Reece introduced himself to the Inquiry into the impact of illict drug use on families. He glossed over his tragic past with naltrexone; I have done 1,800 rapid detoxes, which is one of the biggest experiences in this country. I was a naltrexone pioneer in Queensland. I have only had two hospital admissions out of 1,800 procedures conducted, which is a world safety record.... I defeated the cream of the methadone crop in court in a long-running battle with the medical board, so I do know the science. [Page 31] At least 25 dead and 1,800 rapid detoxes - each taking days and requiring intensive medical support - in eight years. And he "knows the science"? Asked about naltrexone fatalities; That is an extraordinary question. Have you asked the same thing of the methadone doctors?... I find your question highly offensive. If Dr Wodak were here and I said, âDr Wodak, how many of your ex-methadone patients have died?â do you think he would give a quantifiable answer? [Page 60] On August 7th 2007 Reece wrote to the Commissioner of Health in New Jersey, USA, lobbying against needle exchange programmes and also painted his experience with naltrexone as authoritative and positive. He also again attacked Wodak; Health department figures indicated last year that in the years 2001-2006 I single handedly registered 11,000 of the 14,000 registrations for opiate detoxification in the state of Queensland. I have also attained one of the three largest numbers of naltrexone based rapid opiate detoxifications in the country of Australia with over 1,800 procedures performed including 600 naltrexone implants. This was done with only two overnight hospital admissions which is a world safety record. I have also submitted evidence to several Government committees and leaders on the subject of drug policy.... Furthermore there is a clear conflict of interest by some of the leading proponents of NSPâs . Dr. Alex Wodak is the International President of the Drug Law Reform Foundation which lobbies unceasingly for drug decriminalization [Source] We also note the support of certain overlapping elements of the religious right in Australia. Firesnake looks closely at this approach toward addiction "treatment" and asks just where the morality lies. How is it "morally correct" as some supporters claim, to place ones superstitions ahead of another's health in making clinical choices? It seems plain that ideology is what defines policy and procedure for certain practitioners. At some point we must ask ourselves which dynamic is really dominating here? The health of the individual or the cosmic duty of the practioner to expunge the aforementioned off-shoots of progressive societies "hedonistic delirium"? And ensure society finds "the way back" as the way forward solution to modern day problems? I must submit dear reader, that the latter is plainly demonstrated. When the gains of democratic society are so insouciantly insulted, we may conclude the signifiers of Harm Minimisation must terrify the morally conservative and appear as invitations to debauchery. More so, it is also plain identities associated objectively with Harm Minimisation, are justly discredited in spectacular evidence vacuums, by dent of their professional leanings. Naltrexone is the emergency adjunct to faith based education and general "just say no" abstinence, employed when they fail. Evidence to the contrary is simply ignored as is the option of respecting the best of both approaches. The conflict of interest here is clear. Faith and superstitious belief cannot be allowed to intercede in the treatment of vulnerable at risk community members. When we consider also what certain proponent will gain from "success" and lose from failure, we must remain highly skeptical. The last word should go to Professor John Saunders who said in 2001 referring to the Reece deaths; The first tragedy is that now a large number of young people have reportedly died having had treatment with Naltrexone. The other tragedy is that the adverse publicity that Naltrexone has received recently will prevent there being a proper research and development program into Naltrexone treatment, including Naltrexone implants. I have a real concern that a useful, the availability of a useful form of treatment, will actually be compromised by all the drama which is occurring at the moment. All articles mentioned in the episode are here. Music thanks to Garageband. Gags. 1 hour. 3 min. 25 MB. read less
