Comments on: Ice is back with a brand new invention

By: wbb

wbb — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:03:32 +0000

It doesn’t matter how nuanced and detailed the Greens make their drugs policy, as Geoff says, they will be fitted up every time. Fred Nile now wants to drug test the Greens members in NSW parliament. It’s insane and cannot be managed by changing policy. You just have to bang away. I’m sure the electorate must be pretty close to full realisation that this type of smear is utter and worthless political bullshit.

By: Geoff Honnor

Geoff Honnor — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:10:54 +0000

In essence, all three parties – Greens, Labor Coalition – running for election, have the same illicit drug policy, with some tinkering round the edges.

All of them believe in harm minimisation – the interdiction and prosecution of bulk supply, demand reduction and a public health focussed basis for engagement.

Labor and the Coalition believe that there should be criminal penalties for personal use; the Greens don’t. All three parties support needle and syringe exchange programs, with Labor and the Greens supporting the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre trial. The Coalition and the Daily Telegraph don’t.

In addition, the Daily Telegraph supports the right to fit the Greens up as drug-crazed crazies every time an election comes round and is violently opposed to any public examination of the drug using practices of News Ltd employees.

A major study in the UK http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125633.100-drugdanger-league-table-revealed.htmlhas just produced a harm-ranked drug league table which runs – from most to least dangerous- so:

heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol, ketamine, benzodiazepine, amphetamines, tobacco, buprenorphine, cannabis, solvents, 4-MTA, LSD, methylphenidate, anabolic steroids, GHB, ecstasy, alkyl nitrates, khat.

You’ll notice that ICE!!!!!! doesn’t make it into the top 7.

You might also notice that the Greens haven’t yet worked out a counter-strategy to the fact that the Tele does this to them every time.

By: Leinad

Leinad — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:49:37 +0000

Ohhh… now I get it!

Props, Guy.

By: parkos

parkos — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:47:44 +0000

Strummer: “But somehow there seems to be this argument that if society were to even talk about relaxing the (historically arbitrary) prohibition on some drugs, then we are somehow on a slippery slope that will finish with crack cocaine and heroin being sold through Woolworths and we will be living in a world overrun by users.”

Erm.. The Sears (department store) catalog in the USA used to sell a legal kit with steel syringes, pipes, heroin, cocaine and morphine. Amphetamine inhalers were standard legal issue for asthmatics until the 1960s in Australia.

The reason these drugs are illegal is because they are effective and addictive and doctors and corporations can get rich by controlling and dispensing their derivatives.

Your houses are being burgled and tax dollars spent on prisons so that pharma company bosses, doctors (legal dealers) and the odd illegal dealer who can dodge the bullets can live large.

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:29:43 +0000

Thanks for your observations Stephen. You give me hope!

Personally I think the Greens would be better served by qualifying their policy a little more. At the moment there seems to be a grand sweeping goal defined, which is essentially the decriminalisation of drug use. The Greens don’t (at least as far as I know) have the baby steps defined that describe how we get from point A (now) to point B. Presumably (or hopefully) there would be trials, pilot exercises, and ultimately a manner of co-ordinating such a policy that would not amount in a free-for-all for drug afficionados, which hopefully is not the point of the exercise. Obviously you can not skip from prohibition of these drugs to decriminalisation of these drugs in a day; such a hypothetical exercise would need to very carefully orchestrated across multiple portfolios and multiple government departments and offices.

Labor managed to legitimise the idea of injecting rooms for certain types of drugs – maybe a supportable next step in relation to this issue would be to try something similar for other problem drugs. I think emphasising practical policy steps that could be taken in relation to harm minimisation would be a better strategy than boldly proclaiming a lofty goal with not much detail around how to get there.

In essence I don’t think you need to go to the extent of your argument 2) to get some ways towards a policy that would actually achieve something great if implemented, but does not completely alienate folks who are naturally adverse to change in this area.

By: Stephen L

Stephen L — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 03:17:53 +0000

I don’t see this piece as a Greens bashing exercise. As a Green I think Guy (and David) raise genuine points about how we should deal with our drugs policy. However, I think the arguments made ignore the problems of alternative approaches, which I’ve tried to summarise below.

1) Keep the same policy but use more weasely words. This might have worked pre-2003. Problem is that now all the major parties and conservative media do is dig up the old policy, run it again, along with some stuff about how the Greens now can’t even be honest about where our policy stands.

2) Drop the policy or change it to one that explicitly endorses prohibition. To do so would be a betrayal of the people who are dying as a result of the failed situation we see today. It would also set a dangerous precedent where the Greens become willing to sell out good policies for electoral advantage.

3) Keep the policy, perhaps making it even more explicit, and run major campaigns explaining why it will be much better than what we have today. Obviously this would be great, given the resources. However, as a party with limited money, energy and access to the media (in the first and last case much more limited than the big guys) this necessarily means redirecting a lot of resources from campaigns on other issues.

I’m not saying the NSW Greens have got it right. Indeed I’m interested in hearing suggestions. However, the idea that there is a painlessly better solution out there strikes me as naive.

By: Mick Strummer

Mick Strummer — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:49:21 +0000

To the Devil Drink:
I am well aware of the figures that result from the use of so called legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes – that they cause the vast bulk of drug related deaths. But somehow there seems to be this argument that if society were to even talk about relaxing the (historically arbitrary) prohibition on some drugs, then we are somehow on a slippery slope that will finish with crack cocaine and heroin being sold through Woolworths and we will be living in a world overrun by users. I just don’t buy it. The truth is, as I said earlier, that there is probably not a single person interested in taking drugs that are currently illicit who is already doing so, or is unable to do so. The authorities can’t even keep drugs that are currently illicit out of prisons. So why does society (sections of it) keep pouring billions into a policy that has manifestly failed and react hysterically if someone wants to even discuss an alternative? I just don’t get it.
Cheers

By: Guy

Guy — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:21:49 +0000

Karen, I can’t find a specific policy document dedicated to drugs policy on the NSW ALP website (which by the way is rubbish). Which is pretty poor indeed at this late stage of the campaign, although there are some measures detailed in the party’s mental health policy.

I should add that I believe Rhiannon is very likely correct in suggesting that the major parties don’t have good answers to the questions being raised in this area. But thanks to the backlash inadvertantly cultivated by the Greens, one wonders if Labor’s poll monkeys would be now advocating caution rather than courage on drugs.

By: The Devil Drink

The Devil Drink — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:12:32 +0000

First of all, huge respect for the post title, Guy. In fact, word to your mother.
Now, as to methamphetamine. It ought to be obvious that the only reason ‘ice’ is a social problem is because of the obvious effect of policing on price signals for the drugs it substitutes: cocaine and ordinary amphetamines. If coke was cheaper and more available, trust me on this, nobody would for a second bother with ‘ice’, for the same reasons that nobody would bother drinking goon from the bottom shelves at the bottle-o if they could afford the insolent, fruity little chardonnays in the fridge. Mick Strummer: far more people die drinking cask dry white than will ever die pulling the meth pipe. It’s not nice and all middle-class, but it’s not that bad.
Presumably even the NSW Greens don’t have the stomach to advocate a policy that’d actually work—ie. bringing down cocaine and speed prices and opening up the market to more efficient and reliable distributors who don’t depend, like modern dealers and bent coppers, on the threat of violence—so they’re stuck with the half-arsed huggy-touchy social-work solution.
If the Greens were truly about ‘honesty’, they’d acknowledge the critical unstated point in the debate: the reason people take drugs is because they’re bloody fun.

Of course, arguing on principle makes the Greens an easy target for drive-by attacks

Remember that these are attacks which serve to draw attention to their policy and shore up support amongst wavering potential Greens voters.

By: Punky Brewster

Punky Brewster — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:05:42 +0000

The reality of ice is it’s own existence – and it’s a truth that has been ignored by most policy makers. The Greens, to their credit, have started debate and dialogue and the issue is out in the public forum. Ice has created a complex ‘no rules’ sub-culture within all levels of society – it’s bigger than just the pre-conceived sensationalised notion of the “junkie”. You can’t begin to successfully legislate or develop possible solutions to any issue unless you accept and de-construct its reality. That begins with acknowledging the largesse of the problem. Current laws have done nothing but help line and fill the pockets of major ice dealers. A change is necessary and perhaps that begins with the Greens proposition. Learn why, who, where, what, how, when… WHY is ice consumed? WHO takes/makes/buys/sells ice? WHERE is the ice coming from? WHAT other solutions may be feasible besides criminalisation and prohibition? HOW can policy makers begin to understand, what essentially, is almost an alien cultural / generational issue?
WHEN?
If the subject of illicit substances, especially that of ice, continues to be dealt with within superficial parameters, Australia will face a major health and social crisis once the true effects of ice are realised and documented over the next ten to twenty years