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,

Also;

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.

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 Interview
Sanho 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 presentation
Peter 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 Audio
Boris 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" podcast
Christopher Hitchens [Author/Journalist]; USA Live TV interview, 2007
Paul Gallagher; Firesnake - "Prohibition: The I.N.C.B." - podcast
Sophia In 'Tveld; ADLE Dutch MP: - EU Review "Towards a drug free world".
Michael Heney; Investigative Journalist
Tony 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.

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;

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.

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 Times

So, 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;

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".

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.

A winnable war eh? Bronwyn Bishop has found one. Indeed, one we've been losing for over 50 years. From the ashes of the shattered psyche shall rise the Phoenix of happy children and perfect families: beneficiaries of Australians wielding Morality. Such is the thrust of the Report on The Impact of Illicit Drug Use on Families. We shall do this because the use of drugs indicates a prior dysfunction in the family. If a drug user is in ones family, ones family is the cause. Bronwyn's going to help.

In a stupefying checklist of evidence rejection Bishop has proven her laziness and impotence as an independent thinker, and reinforced how darn smart Howard was to dump her from portfolios: twice. Her new battle flag - Harm Prevention - exists as a single PDF on Drug Free Australia's website. Her insouciant use of DFA, and by extension, abuse of vulnerable and superstitious minds extends as far as speaking DFAlish herself.

Bishop has taken on DFA's "catch me if ya care" approach. Conflicts of Interest between DFA, Bishop and Crusading Moralism render this posturing in an effort to please her PM, quite pathetic. The entire might of Harm Prevention - a single page requesting one's details - is parroted by Bishop as some contribution - not the verbal plagiarising of one ambitious single page.

Campaign to Refocus Australia's Illicit Drugs Policy to "Harm Prevention" is the single title on the DFA PDF [May 10. 2007].

Others who respect evidence supporting Harm Reduction were also assumed to be "pro-drug". The use of evidence to attack Harm Minimisation and insouciantly dismiss the experiences in submissions that accept the evidence of Harm Reduction is a standout feature. These poor souls are of course misled by the band of international research fellows intent on bringing Earth to it's knees. Wodak is one, it came out in the bowels of Parliament. Seemingly intent on quality research, progressive thinking, economic policy rationale and compassion, he has continued in this most unhelpful heathenism of effortlessly educating Australians.

And now, they've started to think. For themselves, no less! That's as Un-Australian as power walking in a non-Aussie tracksuit. Far better to ignore the intractable, escalating and horrific outcomes of prohibition. The global drug industry is, quite seriously, something we must not shirk from understanding. It holds the esteemed status as a member of the tripod of the stand on which our fragile globe spins. Arms, Oil, Illicit Drugs.
 
It is not however, the proper term to describe those who have taken a stride ahead. Cannabis is easier to purchase than tobacco. It's perceived as less damaging, and available with no checks, advice, prior awareness, images, ID requirements and help lines enforced by law under Harm Minimisations Harm Reduction concept, as with cigarettes. It is erroneous to cast such progressive reasoning as "pro-drug" and attempt to cast those who seek trials of regulation as "for drug legalisation". Why bother examining the intricacies of illicit drug economics, when we have a real life conspiracy that is aiming to sell Ice to kids. To legalise drugs.

Many drugs are of course already legal. Heroin is a medication prohibited 54 years ago. It's proven disastrous. Trials for addicts run similarly to methadone maintenance indicate greater efficacy at addressing lifestyle, community contribution, crime and even the buzz word of the decade: Families. But we can't have an illicit seen as a health issue. Next thing backyard shed grade Meth' will be on sale at McDonalds. Surely that's what these "evidence proponents", as they've been called, want.

So it's War, Goddamnit! But not just any War. A Winnable one! Assuming Aussies won't take part in waging war on the Oil industry [if there's room for another one] or buy arms from the global arms trade to wage war on the global arms trade, we may indeed have the resources. But where to start? What the heck would 20 million people fall for after Iraq, AWA's, Immigration, Refugees, our shiny new presence on Amnesty HR watch, or Howards moral relativism and bed rolling with cashed up god-botherers?

Why, the family. Fair bet most of us have or had one. Now that we wield morality, we shall not speak of how families come to be, but we will control how they exist. In fact, we'll qualify them.

Inexplicably, Bronwyn Beehive - our assistant for the CPDCT awards - is absent from the Humble Firesnake Holeplex. So, in view of spare time we have replaced the Clear and Present Danger to Critical Thought, with a live cross to Beehive Island.

We cross live via satellite to Agent FS, holed up in a bunker Apocalypse Now style, to bring us the first reports on secret trials of Harm Prevention.

Articles relevant are here.

Music thanks to Garageband

FX thanks to grsites.com

Gags.

20 min.
8 MB.