There are a number of email lists for ATOD professionals in Australia. The preeminent one is arguably the ADCA Update list. Over the past year or two, Drug Free Australia has been active in posting articles emphasising an abstinence approach, something that’s riled a number of prominent ATOD professionals on the list.
The issue has escalated to the point that I though it worth posting a poll to see how widespread the objections are to Drug Free Australia’s approach on the email list. Whether ADCA take any notice of the results is up to them – I sympathise with the difficulties in balancing varied debate with claims of overt propaganda. Onto the poll:
As always, feel free to make any further comments below, no matter which side of the fence you are on the issue. If you can’t see the poll above, use this link to vote.
The primary agenda of “drug free” and “anti-drug” organisations seems to be to use govt funding to increase their influence in the community. They equate a humane, harm minimisation approach to being “pro-drug” ignoring social and emotional realities faced by individuals and families.
I was working in Cabramatta when it was dubbed the “Heroin Capital”, immediately a large number of religious/cult organisation sprang up in the area offering “counselling” to drug users. None of the ones I spoke to had the slightest inkling of the nature of drug problems or any skills in counselling and cared even less about providing appropriate services. It was the most cynical, self-serving exercise in evangelism for financial gain that I have ever seen, “religions” grubbing for public money to “help” a group of people (drug users) who they openly despise.
Gayle
I have no objection to DFA or anyone posting genuine and new research results and the like. But when anyone posts low quality commentary from tabloid newspapers or the blogs of dodgy politicians, it’s a misuse of the list.
Particularly objectionable is material that criticises harm minimisers or people who oppose prohibition simply on the grounds of their position, like the recent La Rouche post. That is pure politics and belongs elsewhere.
I don’t know- perhaps Jo Baxter should be allowed to destroy any semblance of credibility she ever had. The LaRouche quote did that better than anything else she’s posted. She does add a lot of noise to the list though- and on that reason alone should be permabanned.
We have allowed this to happen.
We allow dubious research that never demonstrates cause. We use dubious research ourselves to justify funding. We suck up to medical research as “evidence”. We vote for people who continue to fund religious orgs (both Labor & Liberal). We ignore the simple fact that the majority of problematic drug users (and ODs) come from a certain socio-economic background.
But the most important thing of all – we do not stand up ourselves and say 80% of my peers use drugs – and so do I.
Drug use is NOT a medical problem. Drug use is a moral problem. Someone else thinks they have a right to tell me what to do over my body because a small percentage of people who use drugs do not have the intellectual ability to use, instead, they abuse.
Anything else is sophist nonsense that allows orgs like DFA to thrive.
All this in the 100 year anniversary of narcotics control. Guess who’s winning… not us.
If I may borrow from Richard Dawkin’s campaign (http://outcampaign.org/)- it’s time to come out and it’s time to out others.
While I disagree with the DFA position. I do understand where it comes from. We would all be a lot better off if there were no addictive drugs. However, the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle.
It is a free country and DFA are entitled to their views. As long as they express them in a factual and honest manner without being vindictive, nasty or deceitful they should be allowed to have their say.
It is the sheer volume, repetitiveness, and uselessness of DFA’s postings that annoy me. As we all know, the abstinence approach has its place, but its advocates, at least those who are involved with DFA, who post on Update do little to enhance their credibility as professionals.
Gayle Stannard – you say you worked in Cabrammatta when it was dubbed the “Heroin Capital”. What exactly was your experience of the “large number of religious/cult organisations” and how do you know they were all universally harmful to drug users etc etc? Are your disparaging comments of some groups based on a realistic assessment of the situation or just on your own anti-faith stance?
I have been involved with Local Drug Action groups in the SW of WA for years and these (often church-based)groups of ordinary local parents and citizens have proved very effective in helping many local youth and their parents to deal with substance abuse problems. The key to dealing with drug problems in the community is to engage and empower the community to act – not make disparaging comments about ordinary, caring persons who are not professional drug counselors of your particular idealogical viewpoint as not having “the slightest inkling of the nature of drug problems or any skills in counselling”.
As a parent of 3 teens speaking to many other parents about concerns with drug use I feel that the arrogant “we professionals know best so don’t step on our turf” attitude you demonstrate in your posting is a major source of frustration to many parents getting the help and support they need to get their kids off drugs. And let me emphasise here – we want kids off drugs – not just using them “safely” for ever! Whats the point in keeping youth maintaining a drug use habit indefinitely if their brains and emotions are so dysfunctional from drug use they remain chronically incapable of holding down a job, a relationship, reliably caring for their kids,or maintaining physical and mental health? Its usually the parents who have to try and pick up the pieces – they want abstinance from, not maintenance of, drug habits.
If you think religious persons only approach and offer support to drug users to gain “converts” or funding that reveals more about your anti-faith prejudices then it does about reality. Why do I get the feeling that your, and other posts here, are about a battle to promote one of two opposing ideologies rather then help drug users get their lives back on track in any way that works?
I know a number of persons of faith who are experienced, qualified drug counsellors, who are very capable of helping drug users get drug free AND recommend an abstinance approach. Quite a number of them are ex drug users themselves. Are they all “self-serving” cultists who are just after Gov funding in your view?? What rubbish – the only persons who make money out of druggies are the drug dealers!
I suggest you need to take a look at your prejudices against those who hold religious ideals that lead them to help others in desperate need. You might find that you could work more effectively with them then against them. The impression I get is that families in the real world need all the help they can get. Stop being so arrogant and take a look at the real needs of families with drug issues. Like it or not, their needs often encompass a spiritual need for a higher purpose for their lives as much as physical/psychological needs.
Like what Michael said:
“I have no objection to DFA or anyone posting genuine and new research results and the like”.
WELL DESIGNED abstinence programs certainly have a place in drug treatment. The more options we have, the better. If DFA’s contributions were for the benefit of drug treatment and drug users then they have as much right as anyone to participate.
The problem is that DFA do not have the intention of improving drug treatment but a well known agenda for pushing their conservative Christian beliefs onto the public under the guise of a drug advisory group.
When they are up against ATOD professionals their lack of credibility and real intentions becomes obvious, like Weez pointed out:
“I don’t know- perhaps Jo Baxter should be allowed to destroy any semblance of credibility she ever had. The LaRouche quote did that better than anything else she’s posted”
The key to the poll question is “their abstinence approach”:
Should Drug Free Australia be able to promote THEIR abstinence approach on ADCA Update list or other professional lists?
Their abstinence approach is based on superstition, junk science, dubious research, hypocritical views, lack of empathy for drug users, misrepresenting Harm Minimisation and the public’s visceral fear of drugs.
I think Gayle summed it up nicely:
“The primary agenda of “drug free” and “anti-drug” organisations seems to be to use govt funding to increase their influence in the community. They equate a humane, harm minimisation approach to being “pro-drug” ignoring social and emotional realities faced by individuals and families”.
I agree with the other responders above. I wouldn’t ban them from posting due to ‘who they are’ but I do consider the way that they post as pretty much useless to my use of the Update list (and in some cases, offensive!). In fact I filter out their contributions now.
Update is not a place to ‘push’ a particular ideology. Perhaps this is where the line needs to be drawn by its moderators.
Gail said:
“As a parent of 3 teens speaking to many other parents about concerns with drug use I feel that the arrogant “we professionals know best so don’t step on our turf” attitude you demonstrate in your posting is a major source of frustration to many parents getting the help and support they need to get their kids off drugs. And let me emphasise here – we want kids off drugs – not just using them “safely” for ever!”
Maybe it’s because they are professionals and you’re not. How would you like someone telling you how to do your job when they clearly have little real knowledge of your profession? When was the last time you read a science paper or attended a seminar on addiction? Being a parent, working for a church group or having a strong opinion is no replacement for a formal tertiary education and the on going specialist training.
I bet you don’t talk to your children’s doctor or psychiatrist like this because you feel you know better. Being professionals, they do in fact know more than you. That’s what they do for a living after studying like any other profession. I will take the advice of medical/welfare/social professionals any day over “it feels good” strategies.
The real arrogance is thinking you are better equipped to deal with the medical issue of drug abuse because you don’t agree with Harm Minimisation or simply because you have misunderstood it.
I have great respect for ATOD workers who not only have a thankless job but have to put up with armchair experts like you who feel drug use is a moral issue and still believe in old wives tales.
I’m regularly outraged by the very name of ‘Drug Free Australia’ How could a country survive without drugs? Drug free would mean no heroin, no marijuana but also no antibiotics, no anaesthesia, no pain killers and perhaps worst of all, no alcohol!!! Even though I find the approach of DFA often offensive I believe it is better to let them continue to post on update in the name of free speach. To have an opposing view presented to us keeps us all on our toes, keeps us honest so to speak. Besides, we should ‘keep our friends close and our enemies closer’.
The cost imposed by alcohol abuse on society exceeds billions annually. This cost is not met by the money collected yearly by alcohol tax revenues. Each day people die from alcohol-related deaths and drink driving. Do tax revenues cover these costs? The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior. The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal. Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.
Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement. Alcohol, is a legal drug for adults, is by far the drug of choice among young people. Moreover, attitudes toward illicit drugs have become far more negative than teenage attitudes toward drinking. We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink. It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.
Herschel Baker
The cost imposed by alcohol abuse on society exceeds billions annually. This cost is not met by the money collected yearly by alcohol tax revenues. Each day people die from alcohol-related deaths and drink driving. Do tax revenues cover these costs? The major danger and cost of alcohol use results from using alcohol to the point of intoxication. Illegal drugs are always used to the point of intoxication and the users pose an even greater risk of causing death from accidents, suicide, and criminal behavior. The only reason that the death rate from illicit drugs is lower than that caused by alcohol abuse is that such drugs are illegal. Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources.
Drug education and prevention is most effective when it is backed by strong laws and law enforcement. Alcohol, is a legal drug for adults, is by far the drug of choice among young people. Moreover, attitudes toward illicit drugs have become far more negative than teenage attitudes toward drinking. We have yet to determine how to keep over 90% of our high schools seniors from taking a drink. It is ludicrous to think that the temptation of trying legal cheap drugs could be overcome solely through educational efforts.
For the record Terry, I have tertiary qualifications in food science and have worked as a laboratory technician so I am probably more familiar then most people with scientific papers/evidence/process.
I have also attended a fair number of seminars about substance abuse in the community.
Your comment actually neatly demonstrates where our difference of opinion lies. You state ” The real arrogance is thinking you (ie. myself as a parent/ordinary community member)are better equipped to deal with the medical issue of drug abuse…..”
You catagorise drug abuse as solely a medical problem, beyond the understanding of anyone you percieve to be uneducated. I believe drug abuse, while benefiting from some medical intervention where necessary to be sure, is not solely a medical condition.
It is more realistic and useful to see drug abuse as a result of a constellation of factors – social, emotional and, yes, moral and spiritual – rather then an isolated “medical” phenomena?
I don’t think any drug addict is helped to rebuild their lives by just handing them over to the medical profession for the latest “treatment”! I’m sure, if you are familiar with the studies on the effectiveness of various treatment approaches for substance abusers you will be aware that none of them are 100% successful and all are doomed to failure/relapse without ongoing family and community support.
The wider community, loving family and concerned friends surrounding the substance abuser should not be cut out of the drug addicts journey of recovery and healing because they are not “professionals”.
You angrily slander me as an “armchair expert” who feels “drug use is a moral issue” and “still believe in old wives tales”. Strong accusations against someone you have never met and seem to have caricatured in your mind as a particular sort of person you despise. But what about you? Do you really believe the arrogant “old school” doctors stance that pesky mothers and anyone else who just happens to love that person being treated should just leave it all to the experts and not ask any questions or be actively involved with their recovery?
Sadly, history shows that all too often the approach of experts working in isolation from the wider social setting is either useless or worse then useless – especially in instances of complex problems like substance addiction. Maybe you need to be a bit more open minded and a bit slower to make judgements and consider non-professional social and community support – ie. old-fashioned people caring about people – is at least as important in achieving positive outcomes for substance abusers as anything medical experts can devise.
You state “Being a parent, working for a church group or having a strong opinion is no replacement for a formal tertiary education and the on going specialist training.” Maybe not – but then these things are not supposed to replace anything. They are just some parts of the fabric of human lives and are not as easily dismissed as you would like them to be. I happen to think life experience apart from formal and ongoing tertiary education has a value – you obviously don’t. Does that make me more arrogant than you?
Here in the UK where we have the highest rate of drug use in Europe, the prevailing ideology of harm redcution has achieved the following
•Drug deaths from heroin and morphine are increasing year on year
•In 2003-4 there was a marked increase in drug related deaths which were largely attributed to heroin, methadone and morphine.(1)
•Drug related deaths are at their highest for 5 years. (2)
•The total number of drug poisoning deaths arising from drug misuse in 2007, increased by 16 per cent from 2006 to 2,640.
•In 2007, 196 deaths involving cocaine occurred, the highest number of deaths involving cocaine since records by the ONS began in 1993.
•Deaths attributed to methadone are at their highest since 1999. In 2007 methadone related deaths increased by 35 per cent over 2006 to 325.
the above can be confirmed by visiting the office of national statistics ONS web site
Notwithstanding a plethora of needle exchanges, drug consumption rooms and other so called harm reduction methods, bllod born diseases are escalating here are the facts from the health protection agency:
•The level of HIV infection among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) in England and Wales is higher now than at the start of the decade.
•In London where the prevalence of HIV in IDUs is higher than elsewhere in England and Wales, 1 in 20 IDUs is infected.
•In the remainder of England and Wales HIV among IDUs has increased from approximately 1 in 400 in 2002 to around 1 in 150 in 2006.
•The prevalence of Hepatitis C among IDUs has increased from 33 percent in 2000 to 42 per cent in 2006.
•Approximately 1 in 5 IDUs has Hepatitis B infection, which extrapolates as an increase approaching 200 per cent since 1997
Herschel Baker:
“Our current system of drug prohibition actually saves thousands of lives and billions of dollars in economic resources”.
Not only is this a lie but it’s disgusting. Thousands of people die every year from prohibition yet you have the audacity to praise it as saving lives. You are so far detached from reality that I shudder to think that you actually have influence over some people. I am just thankful that your lot are slowly being seen for the dangerous, selfish zealots that you really are.
The rest of your post is just as ludicrous.
DFA are becoming more like a bad Monty Python sketch everyday.
Simple mathematics reveals that one costly hazardous substance plus another costly hazardous substance will not become safer or less costly by adding a new group of costly and hazardous chemicals.
There is no such thing as “reasonable use” of illicit drugs. If every time someone had a drink they became inebriated, that person would be labeled a drunkard and an abuser of alcohol. Illicit drug users only take drugs for one reason-to get high. The inevitable intoxicating effect of illicit drugs distinguishes these substances from alcohol and tobacco.
Alcohol abuse and tobacco use are not to be condoned, but there is an important distinction that can be made between these and illicit drugs. The reason that there is no such thing as responsible use of alcohol by kids is that, as the teens themselves tell us, they drink to get high with their friends. And more teens die from alcohol and drug related accidents than any other single cause.
It is difficult to conceive of how one can justify distributing dangerous and addictive drugs to those that desire them and at the same time require a prescription for potentially helpful medicines such as antibiotics. If cocaine and heroin are approved for public consumption, what will the Government standard be for approving any drug offered by the pharmaceutical industry? Unless we make the drug manufactures and distributors immune from damage lawsuits from the inevitable death and destruction caused by these products, will any company risk selling these substances.
It is difficult for legalization proponents to make these distinctions and to find any realistic approach to legalization
Alcohol prohibition failed because a popular legal substance with a long cultural and social history was banned without the moral consensus of the people.
All laws are expressions of the moral will of the people. However, laws cannot make a wrong into a right. Laws that allowed slavery did not make slavery right or just.
Illicit drug use is wrong. It enslaves the user and victimizes all of society. The current law reflects our overwhelming recognition of that fact.
Herschel Baker
More lies from Herschel Baker.
Herschel Baker: “The inevitable intoxicating effect of illicit drugs distinguishes these substances from alcohol and tobacco.”
One standard drink causes a degree of intoxication. That’s the point isn’t it? Otherwise we would all be drinking chocolate milk, soft drink or non alcohol wine. For the purposely ignorant, “a few drinks” has no effect. Not true. Alcohol gives you a mild relaxation effect from one standard drink. About the same effect as one Valium, a few puffs on a joint, a small amount of opiates like morphine or heroin. This old argument of “a few drinks versus getting stoned” was dismissed decades ago but the anti-drug crusaders continue to play on the public’s ignorance. The fallacy that drug users cannot vary their intake like drinkers do is part of the lie that any use of illicit drugs deems the user instantly “out of their mind”. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.
Herschel Baker: “It is difficult to conceive of how one can justify distributing dangerous and addictive drugs to those that desire them and at the same time require a prescription for potentially helpful medicines such as antibiotics.”
Again, more lies. How many drug law reformists support the open sale of hard drugs? No one I know and it’s not the goal of any of the major anti-prohibition groups. Herschel Baker and co. know this but shamefully they continue to deceive the public It’s this disingenuous tripe that is the only way to keep themselves relevant. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.
Herschel Baker: “Illicit drug use is wrong. It enslaves the user and victimizes all of society. The current law reflects our overwhelming recognition of that fact”.
And again, more lies. The current laws DO NOT reflect the harms of drugs. Alcohol and tobacco being legal proves this. Repeating the same old lies over and over will never actually make it true.
The underlying theme is that “Illicit drug use is wrong”. This type of misguided personal opinion is the basis for causing over a million deaths and massive suffering. Attempts to halt science and common sense drug policies continue to cause untold suffering around the world whilst twits like Herschel bask in their self righteous glory of evangelism and/or conservative ideology.
Their selfish motives are not about better treatment for addicts or helping people. I doubt that any well grounded person especially a dedicated Christian could support their deception and cruel, non compassionate dogma.
Read more here:
http://theaustralianheroindiaries.blogspot.com/2009/02/lies-deceit-dfa-and-herschel-baker.html
Anyone knowing anything about the drug recovery process understands at least the following salient points:
1) The primary issue that an addict needs to face is his/her relationship with their drug of choice. Period. Addicts need the cure, not the poison. It’s not about needles or crack pipes. We can’t solve problems of permissiveness with more permissiveness. Abstinence within a proper treatment setting is the answer. Sweden has 1/3 of the drug problems as the rest of Europe because they aim for a ‘drug free society’. This is not an achievable goal but, as with the complete elimination of child molestation which is also unattainable, it is nonetheless a worthy aim and one that is worth fighting.
2) No one has ever died or gotten a drug-related illness while in proper treatment. To be truly compassionate, you don’t give an addict what they want (drugs, needles, shooting galleries, crack pipes, etc.), you give them what they need (treatment, life skills training job skills training, etc.).
3) The secret to winning the battle of drug addiction is hard work, as with decent long-term treatment following the Therapeutic Treatment Model (San Patrignano in Italy, ‘Inner Visions’ in New Westminster, or the ‘Welcome Home Society’, in Surrey). Since 1978, San Patrignano has taken in over 18,000 people, offering them a home, healthcare, legal assistance, and the opportunity to study, learn a job, change their lives, and regain their status as full members of society.
4) We must be judgmental about an addict’s drug-related behaviour, not who they are as people. We owe it to those whom we are caring for. Harm Reduction proponents want to reduce the harms done by an addict to him/herself and possibly the community but without being judgmental about their drug use. This is a growth factor in the junkie industry, as those being afflicted by drug use are allowed to freefall through society until they hit the Skids and roll into the grave. The farce behind the HR saying of “Getting them where they are at” is self-evident. Why not get them where they are at when they dropped out of school or lost their job after first starting to use drugs (or have decent prevention practices in place to begin with)? Because that would be judgmental. Shame on us!
5) There is a marked shift in an addict’s mindset after sobriety is reached. During active use, everything they do and say backs up their need to get their next fix. In drug survival mode, they will lie, cheat, rob and steal from their own mother. They are in a clouded state of mind with poisons coursing through their systems. Harm Reduction does little to dissuade them from using drugs, regardless of what the proponents say. After detoxifying and getting on the road to recovery, the vast majority of addicts denounce the enabling and condoning aspects of Harm Reduction as that which kept them stuck in their addiction.
6) After 20 years of harm reduction, you may have a live addict and most certainly a diseased one (40% share needles due to the frailties of the human character), but after two decades of treatment-related modalities, a far healthier and productive citizen emerges.
7) Those in the thriving ‘junkie industry’ are tossing lifesavers made out of blood-soaked meat to the hapless shipwreck victims who have gone overboard with their drug ‘experimentation’ in cold, shark-infested waters. All this is done under the banner of compassion mind you, as we must not take away their ‘freedom of choice’. That would be judgmental of us. I would argue that to a large degree, the addict is unable to soberly choose what is right for them anymore. Their loss of dignity and health speaks to that so we must be compassionate and steer them into treatment. The surviving addict population in the DTES is so sick now compared to that of the late 80’s. It is shameful to facilitate disease and death in this manner.
Health Minister Tony Clement has finally set a new, healthy and prosperous course for Canadian drug policy. The efforts behind the ‘Four Pillars Model’ (prevention, treatment, enforcement, and harm reduction) have been in vain, if you pardon the pun, because there has been too much emphasis on the so-called harm ‘reduction’ components. As outspoken HR critic David Berner recently posted on his blog:
“[Health Minister] Clement is bucking all the accepted wisdom and all the official stories about safe injection sites. Like you, he knows that these are hideous mistakes that help very few. He knows that numbers and facts have been endlessly manipulated by doctors and social workers and politicos to support a program that is a deadly waste…Addressing the Canadian Medical Association, Clement said, “Over the last five years, while Insite has been operating, we could have provided treatment to 5,000 addicts. Instead, during that time, 250 addicts have died of drug overdose alone,” adding that the vast majority of injections still take place in back alleys and seedy hotels, and the centre’s $3-million annual cost would be better spent elsewhere. Of course, he has been viciously attacked for stating the politically incorrect truth.” (thebernermonologues.blogspot.com:80)
zzzzzzzzz
Each and every argument you make is shown to be wrong. You have only provided more sanctimonious dribble to be disproved once again. How about dealing with the first lot of lies.
“Anyone knowing anything about the drug recovery process understands at least the following salient points”
This simply sums up that your idea of drug treatment is confined to a small group of misguided, arrogant, selfish, ignorant, agenda driven, reality absent, non-medical, holier-than-thou zealots. You people are the parasites of the ‘junkie industry’ being that you do not contribute any scientific, psychiatric or medical input. You survive only by introducing an extra variable called morality that is not even part of this medical issue. The point is, you’re irrelevant and only exist because you have forced your way in by playing on the public’s ignorance and fear.
I must admit though, I love your reference to outspoken, right wing ultra-conservative and HR critic David Berner as some sort of proof for your argument. Canada’s own Andrew Bolt/Tim Blair. Even better are the references to Canadian Health Minister Tony Clement. Now he’s a winner. LOL.
These people are as deceitful as you. Saying “the vast majority of injections still take place in back alleys and seedy hotels” when Insite can only service 5% of the injecting population is just typical. Also saying “The centre’s $3-million annual cost would be better spent elsewhere” is not true because Insite has been deemed a success. Or “We recognize that the best recovery programs are those like AA, which cost very little money and large investments of time and effort by people who care and people who KNOW THE TERRITORY”. Or “If all of that money or even a small portion of it were dedicated to treatment, our addiction problems would be considerably relieved”. All not true thus all are lies. I can see a pattern here.
I could go on for hours.
I think this following sentence sums up your selfish ideology you try to pass off as caring for the drug addicted.
“I would argue that to a large degree, the addict is unable to soberly choose what is right for them anymore. Their loss of dignity and health speaks to that so we must be compassionate and steer them into treatment”.
Interpretation:
An addict is an undignified sinner who is unworthy of respect and must be forced to into abstinence or go to jail (compassionately of course), regardless of the medical research and evidence that they might not be psychologically ready and will most probably relapse.
Oh dear Herschel. Please don’t imagine for a second that a drug user is automatically an addict.
I have many friends whose drug use over the years would make you cringe with fear that society is crumbling. But generally speaking most people in their early 20’s who flirt with drugs will grow out of it with no ill effects, just like those who continue. Use of illegal drugs should not be a crime, and in some cases is less dangerous than smoking or drinking. Or eating peanuts.
Many drug users whom I know have important, extremely well paid jobs.
And all of them can make a better argument than you.
I believe that they have as much right to be on the Update E-list as anybody else. I don’t, however, believe that they should be posting tabloid style propaganda to the Update E-list. If they want to post that sort of garbage they should post it to the Drugtalk E-list where it can be disassembled & constructively critised.
My other worry, apart from DFA’s propaganda on Update, is the fact that the Australian Government has one of DFA’s worst propagandists as a member of ANCD.
Terry Wright said “Maybe it’s because they are professionals and you’re not. How would you like someone telling you how to do your job when they clearly have little real knowledge of your profession? When was the last time you read a science paper or attended a seminar on addiction? Being a parent, working for a church group or having a strong opinion is no replacement for a formal tertiary education and the on going specialist training.”
Terry, this unfortunately is not always the case. Professionals unfortunately are not always more knowledgeable than the parents. Take FASD for example – here in Australia the majority of ATODS professionals (or other health professionals for that matter) know very little about the impact of FASD or how to deal with a client who has FASD. Because of their lack of knowledge their intervention often exacerbates the clients condition. It is the parents who have done the research, read the scientific papers and attended the international conferences and it is the parents who have become the information source for the providers rather than the other way round. This is an untenable situation.
Sue, I take your point and people like you deserve much more credit than you receive. The difference though is that you are fighting for the well being of those with FASD using science and medical research. Many anti-drug groups do not use science or medical research but their own misguided opinions formed from the MSM or groups like DFA.
I am willing to bet that those professionals who intervene and cause trouble for FASD sufferers also support faith based initiatives and ‘tough love’ treatment for drug addicts.
To address Gail Gifford’s comments. I stand by my statements about working in Cabramatta. I think you have read a lot into my conmments without reading my comments. I have worked in D&A for almost 30 years and throughout that time have counselled innumerable people for the harm caused them by both mainstream and cult religions.
I also remember a time in NSW when more than a couple of drug rehab programs were run like cults. One of the reasons the field embraced training and professionalism was to avoid a reoccurance of similar situations. Now it seems the field has come full circle. With DFA, the Scientologist and a number of others declaring that they alone have “the answer” the drug problem and receiving govt funds.
More than once I have sought advice via the ADCA Update on how to address the needs of clients who have experienced permanent psychological, physical and sexual harm inflicted by the religions of which they had been members.
I believe that the basic training of D&A counsellors should include “exit” counselling, because so much of our work includes trying to help people heal from some of the “help” they have received in the past.
Gayle
How come that all these do-gooders don’t ever acknowledge that today, 2009 it’s the USA who is the greatest drugs pusher in history of humanity.
Afganistan is producing around 90% of heroin.
To refine the opium in to heroin one need a lot of “catalist” which has only single use, heroin production.
This chemical is produced outside Afganistan and being shipped in to Afganistan by tanker after tanker from Turkey.
Who from US administration is allowing this to happen? Withouth this “catalist” there would be no heroin.
Us military have knowledge of the location of all the heroin laboratories and surprise, surprise, not one bomb fell on those labs, even though rest of the country had the “ruble” rebombed. HOW COME?
Not only that, the “northern aliance” which consist of the biggest druglords from nothern part of Afganistan, where most of the popies are grown have been set up by US as a new “democratic” government.
The Taliban has eliminated most of the popy fields from areas under their control, so how come that now while the US is in charge, the heroin production has doubled, comparing with pre-war figures, to a stagerring 7 thousand tons per year.
To produce this amount of drug requires some 300 thousand hectares of land.
One could see this much purple flowers from moon, so how come it is still happening?
You can’t carry this amount out in condoms up the anus, one would require some 350 semitrailers.
How high the corruption goes? Is OBAMA to stupid to know it’s happening?
Is our own KEVIN in on the act?
Who is pocketing all the money, we talking trilions of dollars.
So what are we doing sending our special forces to Afganistan to kill people for what?
To protect the US heroin trade?
Finaly, how come that there’s no debate in our Government (and opposition)as to how much misery 7 000 tons of heroin causes and what are our soldiers doing in Afganistan?
How come that our mass media are silent?
Papa bear.
I hate drugs such as methamphetamine, and I hate drugs such as heroin being abused, because opiates should be kept to pain management, and street heroin is damage because of its impurity and unknown dosage factor. Also the uneducated and dangerous habits of many drug addicts put them at further risk.
However when organizations such as DFA, try to demonize the only safe drug- marijuana. I take issue.
There is no HARD EVIDENCE linking marijuana to mental illness of any sort, though it is known to potentially trigger panic attacks in some people (who have had too much), but this is temporarily and not directly caused by the drug (its a psychological reaction, not a biochemical reaction. I know I used to get it, but you can train yourself out it in most cases).
A lot of research has discredited much of the apparent claims of marijuana causing mental illness, but of course such research is basically snobbed. There is a dominant western culture of bias against marijuana, we see a rebellion against this in place like California, where many doctors are sticking up for the safety of marijuan.
I don’t have a problem with it being made only available medically, though I believe the criteria should not be strict, it should be up to the individual opinion of any given doctor, and it should be possible in some cases to get marijuana even for certain psychiatric problems, and alcoholism. We don’t want it just available to a select list of patients with extreme conditions. The decision of whether it is useful or not should be between a patient and his doctor- not the state.
Smoking marijuana is bad for your lungs, but generally not in the same league as tobacco smoking.
It does not damage your organs or brain. The vast majority of people do not experience problems with cannabis, and when people feel they experience problems, the reality is these are usually much milder than say for example troubles caused by alcohol.
Marijuana is MUCH safer than alcohol. Marijuana is safe for adults over 21 without a diagnosis or family history of psychotic illness. Some caution should be exercised in people with anxiety disorders, though some of such people feel marijuana helps- I myself am included as I used to suffer from multple panic attacks every day.
Marijuana has never made me feel suicidal, aggressive or depressed. Alcohol most certainly has, and as a former severe alcoholic, I almost died from my alcoholism- marijuana was what helped me get completely away from alcohol (its been over 10 years now).
FUCK people that think I should not be allowed to have marijuana, it has probably saved my life, by being the only thing that could pull me away from my compulsion to drink. I have also experienced insomnia my whole life since a child (I was taken to various doctors for insomnia even as a child). Marijuana defeated my alcoholism, helps with my diagnosed anxiety and depression (I have been hospitalized for major depression, but not in the 10 years I have been smoking pot).
While I think people need to be responsible, mature and informed in regards to whether consuming marijuana is right for them, I honestly believe marijuana is not an EVIL drug, but a good drug. I view it with affection, and I completely trust the substance. I have smoked with thousand of people and I have NEVER seen a person become psychotic on weed, except for people that were psychotic BEFORE they started using weed.
I wanted to add a bit more to what I said above.
I help disdvantaged kids from backgrounds of chronic and extreme abuse, with extreme behavioural problems.
I have personally been involved with many drug addicted parents, I have seen heroin and methamphetamine addiction up close and personal, I have lived with such people.
I can tell you that all the kids that I have told marijuana is safe, are now only smoking marijuana and not using other drugs. All the kids that have just used marijuana are all doing well.
The kids that are basically doomed are the ones that started inject meth from around 12 years of age, in fact the youngest girl I’ve known who inject meth was 10 years of age, her mum used to whack it up her arm.
Most of these kids have seen first hand the extreme damage of drugs such as methamphetamine and alcohol. But they have observed that adults don’t become nutty when on pot.
From their own observations they have chosen pot, though I have sort to further develop and educate their perspectives on this.
I can honestly say that all the kids that have been directed to pot, are all doing quite well.
I used to give pot to kids I saw inhaling solvents and butane gas, because its much safer. Those kids stopped doing that and are now using pot.
People need to understand that when kids have been brought up by chronic drug addicts, and have chronic emotional problems from their abuse / neglect, that they are chronically predisposed to the idea of using substances to feel “better”. If they didn’t smoke pot, they would have gone onto alcohol, and like eventually graduated to other drugs.
I don’t think marijuana is ideal for teenagers. Some of them do it too much, and get lazy and don’t do much else, but this is actually the exception to the rule by my observation. Its really a behavioural issue, just like I know various teenagers that waste their lives doing nothing else but playing computer games (indeed various teenagers I know both smoke lots of pot AND play lots of computer games).
The biggest gateway effect of pot, is that kids are being given false demonized information about cannabis, they soon realize this is bullshit (and this is honestly what most kids think, including ones subjected to anti-drug education). They then get cynical about other drugs being dangerous and try them also- this is the biggest risk.
While I believe if it was sold at every super market and glamorized in TV advertisements that usage would rise, I don’t believe usage would rise if it was legalized and treated in a restricted / discreet way (no advertising), age restrictions on sale, not available everywhere only special stores with no outside advertising.
I believe usage would go down. It doesn’t matter though for every kid that chose pot over alcohol or other drugs, one life has had a better outcome.