- Details
- Hits: 3
While policy makers debate the finer points of harm reduction versus prevention, and schools struggle to squeeze in a single hour of drug education between standardised tests, real kids are making real decisions about substance use with potentially lifelong consequences. The statistics paint a picture that should make us all uncomfortable: nearly two-thirds of 18-year-olds have tried alcohol, almost half have used marijuana, and a concerning number think It continues to both fascinate and disturb this team to note the pro-drug lobby’s ability to hijack that successful 1980’s JUST SAY NO campaign and malign it to the point where it is now a mocking meme. This new one-liner is supposed to make anyone who sets a solid health, safety and well-being boundary in the refusal to engage with psychotropic toxins – who exercises this most proactive of protective factors –– as somehow ‘stupid’.
However, what is stupid is allowing this pro-drug and resiliency undermining narrative to go unchecked, especially when we are urged, no, demanded to say NO to other psycho-social harms – We ‘must’ say NO to violence against woman, or NO to drug/drink driving and NO to Bullying or Crime etc… but NO to drug use, which is almost invariably involved in making the above issues worse, is mocked!
This short ‘heads up’ should jolt even the most brain-washed reader into understanding this ‘you can’t say no’ to drugs meme is an integral strategy in the war for drugs now being waged on our most vulnerable of citizens.
What it is time for, is an honest, evidence-based examination of what's actually happening to our kids' brains, bodies, and futures when they use substances during these critical developmental years. More importantly, it's time to ask some uncomfortable questions about why our prevention efforts look more like a game of whack-amole than a coherent strategy.
- Details
- Hits: 54
‘Drug checking’, just like pill testing, is premised on the demonstrably incorrect inference that most drug-related deaths are tied to either unknown purity of drugs bought from criminals, or deadly contaminants or other toxic drugs mixed in with such purchased drugs.
For decades now, the same parties now requesting substantial government funding for ‘drug checking’ have been pushing the same spurious misinformation.
Here are the direct words from ANCD Research Paper 1 – ‘Heroin Overdose’ coming from the Prime Minister’s own Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) in the year 2000. This paper was produced in the midst of Australia’s highest rates of opioid overdose.
On page xiii, under the heading ‘Purity’ the NDARC researchers assert,
“If overdose were a simple function of purity one would expect the blood morphine concentrations of fatal overdose victims to be significantly higher than living intoxicated heroin users. As described above, it has been found that many individuals who die of an opioid overdose have blood morphine concentrations at autopsy which are below the commonly accepted toxic dose. Studies that have investigated the relationship between the purity of street heroin seizures and fatality from overdose report a weak correlation, or no correlation, between heroin purity and fatality from overdose.”
Then on page xiv, under ‘Contaminants’ it reports,
“In general, studies outside the eastern United States do not report the detection of impurities in seized heroin. Adulterants found in Australian heroin samples are largely pharmacologically inactive dilutants (used to add bulk) or caffeine (believed to increase the bioavailability of heroin when smoked).”
We were speciously told for decades that it was the criminal sourcing of these drugs that led to so many deaths, even as equal numbers of opiate users were dying from pharmacologically pure Oxycodone and the like. But ‘drug checking’ is spinning the same narrative.
Drug Free Australia does not deny that criminal-manufactured pills with high potency opioids masquerading as lower potency opioids will cause some unexpected fatalities, but much more evidence is needed to show that these are anything but the tiny minority of fatalities.
Balanced against this are the massive number of opiate deaths caused by the harm reductionist messaging which teaches the ‘safe use of illicit drugs’, of which drug checking is seminally a part. This messaging quadrupled opiate deaths between 1984 (below 250 for 15-44 year olds) and 1,116 for 15-54 year olds in 1999. The prevention and rehabilitation priorities of Tough on Drugs made opiate deaths plummet by 67% (or a massive 750 opiate deaths per year), where they stayed for 7 years until a new Federal Government scrapped them. In the decade following, with the ‘safe use of drugs’ message again prioritised, opiate deaths skyrocketed 260% with other contributing polydrug-use illicit drug deaths increasing 210-590%. Harm Reduction’s ‘safe use of drugs’ ideology has very demonstrably added many, many thousands of opiate deaths to Australian mortality tolls and heavily weights any set of balances against a few lives saved by ‘drug checking’. Drug Free Australia has no problem with law enforcement continuing to publicise contaminants or adulterants in seized drugs, maintaining the message that drug use is not acceptable, rather than allowing drug-normalisating NGOs to take that role.
In case you missed our documents supporting the above paragraph last time we sent them, here they are once again for your information and edification.
Gary Christian
PRESIDENT
Drug Free Australia
0422 163 141
NSW Drug Summit 4 DFA handouts
- Details
- Hits: 68
Firstly, no credible individual on the planet concedes that recovery is better than prevention – However, prevention is always – always better than cure.
Three major demographics that must not only be considered but given highest priority in all drug policy and drug policy interpretations.
This better status of prevention is so because it considers and prioritises the following,
1. Citizens – Communities and their families
2. Children
3. Recovered and Recovering Alumni
- Details
- Hits: 77
Here's a sobering thought: While your average recreational substance user is busy defending their "harmless fun," approximately 8.7 million children in the United States alone are living in households where at least one parent struggles with substance use disorder. That's right – one in eight children under 17 are watching their childhood disappear into the bottom of someone else's bottle or going up in someone else's smoke. Let's cut through the haze and look at what the research actually tells us about this "recreational" activity's impact on the next generation.
For complete investigative article
- Details
- Hits: 175
Commercial interests are increasingly recognised as significant contributors to drug use and addiction. These interests are part of the broader social determinants that influence health behaviours and outcomes. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies these determinants as the conditions in which people live and work, which are heavily influenced by commercial forces. This article delves into how industries such as alcohol, tobacco, and ultra-processed foods impact public health, the statistics reflecting their toll, and the need for policy interventions to mitigate these effects.
The Impact of Key Industries
The alcohol, tobacco, and ultra-processed food industries are major contributors to global health issues. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), excessive alcohol consumption results in over 178,000 deaths annually in the United States. Tobacco use is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths each year. Additionally, unhealthy diets rich in ultra-processed foods lead to approximately 678,000 deaths annually from nutrition- and obesity-related diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes. Collectively, these industries significantly impact mortality rates, contributing to the 3.27 million deaths recorded annually in the U.S.
Economic Costs and Marketing Strategies
The economic burden imposed by these industries is staggering, with tobacco alone costing over $300 billion annually. These costs are often transferred to other sectors such as healthcare. The profitability of these industries is driven by products that exploit the brain’s reward system, encouraging compulsive consumption and addiction. This is evident in the marketing strategies employed, which are designed to enhance the appeal of products by stimulating reward-seeking behaviours.
Emergence of New Addictive Products
The landscape of addictive products is evolving with the rise of vaping and cannabis industries. Vaping, particularly nicotine vaping, has surged in popularity, raising concerns about its health impacts, especially among teenagers and young adults. While vaping is marketed as a less harmful alternative to smoking, it poses risks such as increased tobacco initiation and addiction. The cannabis industry also capitalises on consumer interests, marketing products in appealing ways that attract younger demographics and suggest therapeutic benefits to older populations.
The Overdose Crisis and Pharmaceutical Influence
The opioid crisis exemplifies the detrimental role of commercial interests in public health. Pharmaceutical companies have historically marketed opioid analgesics aggressively, contributing to widespread addiction and misuse. As regulations on legal opioids tightened, illicit markets flourished, introducing more potent substances like fentanyl. The involvement of sophisticated drug cartels has further exacerbated the crisis, which claims 108,000 lives annually in the U.S.
Technology and Behavioral Addictions
The tech sector also plays a role in fostering addiction-like behaviours. Social media platforms are designed to be used compulsively, mirroring the addictive strategies of traditional industries. Studies link social media use to increased substance use and mental health issues among adolescents. Online gambling is another area of concern, with its continuous play features posing significant addiction risks compared to traditional gambling.
Policy Interventions and Research Needs
Addressing the influence of commercial interests requires robust policy interventions. Lessons from tobacco and alcohol regulation, such as advertising restrictions and taxation, can inform strategies for new addictive products. For instance, smoke-free laws and higher tobacco taxes have effectively reduced smoking rates. Similar approaches could be applied to vaping, cannabis, and online gambling to mitigate their health impacts.
Research is essential to understand the full extent of commercial influence and to develop evidence-based interventions. This includes examining the potential benefits and harms of emerging products and crafting policies that prioritise public health over economic interests.
(Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse)
- Childhood maltreatment linked to greater cognitive difficulties than previously thought
- Substance Use & Family Violence: ‘Permission’ Policies vs the Rights of the Child
- Family connectedness, particularly at meal times – excellent protective factor
- Feeling Nothing, Craving Everything: ACOA (Adult Children Of Alcoholics Syndrome)