"Society has not found the solution to drug use".

There is a solution. Before the age of 12 condition the child to become a health fanatic.

Good article.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a "culture" saturated in drugs. There is a drug "remedy" for almost everything. We become under the influence of drugs even in our mothers womb as all drugs cross the placenta.

Most of us become totally drugged out during the birth process. It takes days, weeks, monthsto recover from that drug assault on the babies sensitive biological systems.

Think of how much money and resources and productive land that is used world-wide to grow the raw materials for all of our legal drugs. Tea, coffee, cocoa, tobacco, the various kinds of plants that are used to produce alcohol, and sugar which is an addictive substance.

Look at all the legal "medicinal" drugs advertised on TV particularly during the winter. The fact of the matter is that most of these minor complaints will disappear by themselves within a few days. And a change of diet to include lots of fresh (raw) fruits and vegetable would reduce the incidence of both colds and sniffles.

But hey that means we would have to take real responsibility for what we put in our mouths and our health altogether. The fact of the matter is that there are very direct links between the kinds and quantities of stuff we put in our mouths and the various dis-eases (both minor and major) that we suffer from.

Also humans have an inherent urge to be happy or ecstatic. Ecstasy is fundamentally taboo in our "culture". It is suprressed in all kinds of ways.

Watching Howard on TV is extremely depressing. Ecstasy verboten

So people will always find ways to go troppo, to become ecstatic. That is why, despite the known dangers, young people of all ages to dance/trance parties and use the drug ecstasy to become ecstatic. Such parties are fun, everyone is happy.

In our normal dreadful sanity we are all supposed to work. Plus eat junk food, watch TV (and thereby be told what to do and what is "real") and consume all the products advertised on TV which will make us "happy"

Anex,a White verson or the Lucrative, Aboriginal Victim Industry?
for further info. www.whitc.info/

Why anyone would take anything Browyn Bishop says seriously is beyond me.

As one who has been at the coal face of illicit drug use, and seen loved ones destroy their lives because of their ill effects, I thank Mr. Ryan and Dr. Woodak for their efforts to change the way that drug abuse is approached in Australia. The current regime is not working, and it is a good thing that public discussion on drug abuse is slowly coming to realise that (albeit slowly).

Always remember the three Rs:
- Supply reduction: the focus should be on those who attempt to profit from the sale of illicit drugs;
- Demand reduction: a ounce of prevention is alway worth a pound of cure. Education and access to treatment programs is the key;
- Harm reduction: If all else fails, I would rather a living, breathing drug user than a dead one.

It's good online opinion continues to publish articles on this subject.

Did anyone else take issue with the fact that the author of this piece repeatedly referred only to the parents of drug users? Maybe its just me - but I found this detracted substantially from the impact of this message.

By figuring only parents as the ones to suffer from an individuals drug problem a) the tendency is to consider drug-related problems as the province only of teenage or young people; and 2)the relevance to the community as a whole is understated - if not completely lost.

The problems of an addicted person impact horrifically on their children, spouses and siblings; to a slightly lesser extent on their friends; and even on their co-workers and associates.

Thus Ms Bishops stance could rather be considered as important to the entire community, rather than being portrayed as an issue with relevance only to one particular sector.

I know plenty of people who have'just said no' to drugs. There's nothing wrong with this approach as a first line.

Combating the attitudes at large, which romanticise and promote illicit drug use is a necessary thing. If not the government,who?

There's nothing wrong with these approaches, if they are part of a comprehensive programme that includes useful and realistic education, harsh penalties for the manufacture and distribution, detox and rehab.

Yes, it is sad to see Medieval reasoning applied to problems with enormous social consequences. What would you think of a scientist who tested a hypothesis, found that no evidence existed to support it, then rejected the evidence because he just knew that it was true? Such thinking can only harm the development of our civilisation.

As a starting point, parameters for assessing the success or failure of drug management strategies must be developed and have bipartisan acceptance. If people do not believe that any evidence could change their thinking, then what chance is there of adopting the best strategy?

Drug taking (abuse) is due to:

1/ Unbalanced lives
2/ Unfulfilled lives.
3/ Torn down values.
4/ Families falling apart.
5/ No 'hope'
6/ A society which has very few noble values.

The 'drug war' is winnable.. but not by tougher law and order alone.

The root of the problem is far deeper. The problem is ...'us'.

Us the individual and us the community.

Since the 60s I have watched in historical wide screen the abandonment of family values, love and respect.. most of all, our connection with God.... our Christian heritage.

Sadly, this is as much due to a 'cultural' and 'Theologically liberal' Christianity allowed to creep into many of the larger denominations, which has only one end.. fading...fading........gone.

Such is not the case in many other countries. Singapore, Africa, Eastern Europe.. One of our own visiting pastors recently shared how he had been to Ukraine, soaked in atheism for so long.. and organized a public meeting with the assistance of the local rather conservative Christians, and to their shock.. a crowd of around 10,000 came along..and it was not one of those cheap 'miracle' services Benny Hinz is renowned for.. just plain "Christ Saves".

Australia is fading, spiritually, morally, socially and politically.. and its all for one reason, we have replaced God, and grace with 'us' and 'freedom' on the throne of our lives.
When Paul said "In Christ you are free, but don't use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh".... we did the opposite, we gripped our freedom and used it ONLY for 'the flesh'....pushing the Almighty, in Christ, out of our hearts and minds..

No amount of creative political or social thinking can save us... we are absolutely doomed apart from a return to Christ. We will be swept up by the tide of world events, and all the 'social trendies' will be wandering around..glazed eyed, in utter despair.. wondering what happened to their quaint theories.

Boaz,

Your assessment of why people take drugs is a complete stereotype and it is clear you have little idea what motivates real drug users, especially their decision to try drugs.

I am sure you are going to tell me that you know someone. Etc. Well I have also been at the coalface and seen many people live happy, well adjusted lives whilst using recreational drugs.

I am not for a second suggesting that no drug problem exists. Merely that the current cycle of education about drugs, often doesn’t’ tally with the experiences of drug users. We need to be honest enough to tell people that; yes, drugs might be fun and that mostly you are going to go home alive, but the risks you are taking are extreme.

Children/teenagers are most likely to come into contact with drugs through their friends. Not some seedy looking adult dealer hanging around the school gate. And if their friends experiences with drugs don’t match the media hyped education, they will dismiss the message as adult propaganda.

The drug war will NOT be won by law and order, EVER. The Soviet Union, a police state if you recall, couldn’t shut down the drug trade. The US has far more draconian laws and many more police than we do, yet they have a HUGE drug problem. Something approaching 60% of inmates in American prisons are drug offenders. That is they were convicted of an offence directly involving drugs. Another 10-15% were incarcerated for crimes which were committed to obtain money for drugs. The situation is similar in Australia.

We have succeeded in criminalising a significant portion of our population, without actually having had much success.

Supply side policing will not work when the demand is so large and the profits are astronomical. No matter how many dealers you jail there are more people in the wings just waiting for their opportunity to take over.

The massive sums involved in the drug trade also pose an incredible risk to our police forces. Corruption is one clear, and terrible, side effect of the War on Drugs.

con't

The only answer is the legalisation of drugs. Supply on prescription. This will have many beneficial effects.

It takes the profit motive out of the equation so organised crime suffers and police no longer face the temptation of bribery. When drugs are produced by drug companies the cost of drugs will be significantly reduced and so the need to commit crime to feed a habit becomes non existent. People don’t need to deal drugs any more so drug pushing becomes far less common. When drugs are made by professionals, users can take safe measured doses of drugs and so are far less likely to die of overdose, or suffer illness due to complications.

These people then have a chance at being productive members of society. I know a number of people who are on drug substitution programs who work full time or study successfully. Before the program these people were a total drain on society.

Peoples greatest fear is that by legalising drugs this will encourage children to use drugs. It has been shown in many countries where they have tried this approach that the number of drug users does not increase.

If you think that the reason that your child hasn’t tried drugs is because they can’t get hold of them you are mistaken. Drugs are freely available in society. The reason most people don’t take them is because they have been educated that drugs are not good for you.

I see that for decades drug policy has been influenced by the stalking horse of religion.

I note there the parallels with religious man-contrived notions of sin, shame and self-denial, and their links with protestant puritanism and the work ethic. Sharon Beder (UOW) has published on the links between the pulpit and the work ethic.

With a fundamentalist and religious right revival, we are entering a new Dark Age. As with the old dark ages, advances in science, math and medicine were stalled. Scientists such as Galileo were persecuted. Dissent was tantamount to heresy. I see with alarm that scenario re-emerging.

Ironically, religious fundamentalists are a minority, despite the census still showing that many people have some "religion". Our various Churchmen [and they are men] won't let go just like a dog with a bone. despite claiming the love of "god", christians are doggedly intolerant of dissent.

For once I agree completely with Paul.L. The current "War on Drugs" is completely unwinnable, and should be scrapped as the dominant policy approach. A significant proportion of society will always use recreational drugs, and the only way that the harm they do to society will be minimised is via legalisation and regulation.

I also agree with Inner City Tranny - I fail to see why the churches always get a seat at the drugs policy table. As far as I can tell, all they do is push their wowserish morality and resist any efforts to generate rational, effective policies.

If drugs were legalised and regulated, our crime rate would drop dramatically, and our gaols would become relatively empty overnight. We would still have the health and social problems that a minority of drug users experience, but the ways that we deal with these could only benefit from a more open approach, totally divorced from the 'law and order' crew.

Excellent article.

Bronwyn Bishop should be charged with crimes against the Australian public. Her insane pushing of a US style zero tollerance drug policy has absolutely no foundantion in scientific fact and is morally corrupt.

The only conspiracy I'd consider would be that she is in the pockets of the drug cartels who run an industry in this country second only in estimated profit to the petro-chemical industry. And of course prohibition is the policy which keeps them in business. Of course they will line the pockets of their cronies in parliament, police, media etc who keep the policy of prohibition alive.

I have said it before and I will say it again - I use recreational drugs (ecstacy and cocaine in particular). I rather enjoy them to tell you the truth.

I own an run a highly successful finance firm, I employ a number of successful tax paying citizens, I love my family, my life and am a well balanced, happy and healthy individual. Dare I say it, but I beleive I contribute more to society than the average citizen (most people don't pay 6 figures in tax a year). I would like to give two big fingers in the air for zealots like Bronwyn Bishop who is a complete and utter moron.

I take solice in the knowledge that given my youthful age, it is highly likely I will enjoy a world without Bronwyn Bishop in it before I am too old. Thank f**k Labour is going to smash the Libs at the next election.

It's important that public opinion preceeds government decision-making. Political parties lack the courage to make decisions that are anathema to large sections of the public especially when the public are traditionally opposed to contentious viewpoints. It is education and research that finally undoes emotional resistance towards solutions to social problems. As such, research needs to be done in the effectiveness of removing prohibition of drug use as a means of undermining the illegal drug trade and to bring drug users with all their associated problems into the open. Only through this method will health services find and treat the mentally disabled who have illegal drug dependency and users of illegal drugs who are totally dependent on drugs. If lifting prohibition was achieved with pharmacutical companies supplying the drugs under medically prescibed use, the following effects would occur almost immediately. (a) There would be no market for illegal drugs and illegal drug suppliers and distributors would be put out of business overnight; (b) drug related crime would almost cease overnight; (c) prisons would have dramatic cuts in prisoner numbers; (d) drug users would receive treatment for their addictions, and (e) the burden on health costs and related social costs would be greatly reduced. You've got to start somewhere and what we are doing now is not working.

Dutchie,

Your analysis is absolutely spot-on. But you are missing one glaring, obvious fact: Your analysis is actually logical, based on evidence and intelligent. Not a single expert in the field would disagree - I mean prohibition is recognised as the biggest failure of policy in the history of this nation.

This is is Australia 2007 mate - policies in this country are based on ignorance, fear and religious extreemism. We have one of the most narrowly controlled and censored medias on the planet and a community full of god fearing zealots and wowzers who's sole purpose in life is to force their puritantical views on the rest of us - and usually with a cigarette in one hand and beer in the other.

Ahhh gross hypocricy - the foundation of this great country

Daniel,

I think one of the reasons that we’re not getting anywhere in this debate is because it is so polarised. People like Browyn Bishop aren’t evil or uncaring, they are simply convinced that the best way to minimise harm to the community is to reduce the supply of drugs.

Although the zero tolerance policy in New York has, without a doubt, been successful in making the city a less violent place, it has not reduced their drug problem. This success has come at the cost of imprisoning many people who were probably capable of rehabilitation,

Whilst she is wrong in pursuing zero tolerance, she is certainly not morally corrupt. She, and people like her, honestly believe this strategy will provide the best results.

The only way we are going to convince Bishop and her ilk is if we cut back on the extremely emotive language and the name calling, and try to help them realise that we are also interested in the best possible result for everyone, especially our children and our communities.

This will only be won based upon the evidence we can put forward. Clinging to ideology and partisanship will not get us anywhere. It's like preaching to the choir.

well said, Paul L.

Boaz, once again: people are perfectly capable of living meaningful and ethical lives without engaging with your supernatural buddies. it is utterly disgusting for you to keep suggesting otherwise.

Premier Brumby of Victoria campained for decriminalisation of drugs when he was the opposition leader, as soon as he was elected he with Bracks funded the most biased research from Swinburne University that is an international disgrace, as far as scientific method is concerned. Even serious academics like Professor Drummond of Monash University supported media fear campaigns. Police and VicRoads abuse scientific method to support their own biased agenda to criminalise drug users. Manufacturers of saliva test kits promote drug testing, they do not disclose false positive error rates.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorial.html#SwinburneResearch

The Greens are the only party who have a harm minimisation policy, they will have my support. Heroin dealers trade unhindered by police despite many calls from local residents. Police support drug dealers who pay them kickbacks. Victorian police have welfare drug testing, a voluntary code while Victorians are stopped at roadblocks for random error prone saliva testing which requires a backup blood sample is given to police. It is not about road safety at all, impairment is not measured at all.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Editorials/Editorial07.html#welfare

It is sickening for anyone concerned about civil liberties and the health of the population the war on drugs is a war on humanity and aspirations for spiritual meaning in life, body and blood of Christ is just so much empty rhetoric compared to a spiritual ceremony with the tribal shaman. The war does relate to Christian values historically, the war on native American religions.

http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Psychology/Hallucinogenic.html#Nature

The war on drugs supports the drug dealers who have police protection, it does nothing to help individual dysfunctional drug users, it criminalises them for a health problem. Criminal guilt by a simple and inaccurate drug test, the former legal standard was that an actus rea was required, some harmful act, now a simple chemical test suffices for criminal guilt.

Amsterdam is a good example where decriminalisation has worked.

There is an incredible bias against those calling for harm minimisation, as if they supported illicit drug use, vilified and intimidated for caring about people with problems.

Tim
http://www.hereticpress.com