Category Archives:Drugs General

The Victorian Government recently announced the second stage of its program to tackle ice addiction.

State Attorney-General, Martin Pakula, unveiled the $57.6 million package – the centerpiece of which is an expanded Drug Court program based at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, allowing an additional 170 drug offenders to receive targeted support.

The funding breakdown is as follows:

• $32 million to expand the Drug Court of Victoria,
• $5.5 million for training and support for frontline workers,
• $6 million for the 18 to 20 bed Grampians mental health facility,
• $10 million to improve mental health, alcohol and other drug facilities, and
• $4 million to address ice addiction in Aboriginal communities.

 

This funding builds on the $45 million pledged by the government last year, which focuses on expanding drug rehabilitation services in Victoria’s drug hot-spots and treating 500 habitual users each year.

Need for Reform

In announcing the plan, Mr Pakula acknowledged the failure of the current punitive approach to drug use. “The lack of effective sentencing options for serious drug-related offences has resulted in increased imprisonment rates, increased re-offending and a failure to address the underlying causes of addiction,” he said.

Victoria has experienced a concerning spike in crime rates in recent years. The State’s Crime Statistics Agency has released figures for 2015 which suggest an 8.1 per cent rise in overall crime. Young repeat offenders were the main driving force for the increase.

Assistant Police Commissioner Robert Hill said young people represented 90% of those arrested for theft, burglary and break and enter offences. The crime rates in each of those areas was by up 10% on the previous year.

Deputy Police Commissioner Andrew Crisp believes that ice is behind most of the drug-related offending.

Methamphetamine Use

While a 2015 study of Australian drug use suggests that the number of Australians using methamphetamines has remained stable at around 2% since 2001, there are significant shifts in:

• The number of users preferring ice over other methamphetamine, up from 22% in 2010 to 50% in 2013,
• The proportion using at least weekly, up from 9.3% in 2010 to 15.5% in 2013, and
• An increase in the purity of ice, up from an annual average of 21% in 2009 to 64% in 2013.

 

A recent report by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) expressed concerns about the damage caused by ice. “Ice is now the number one problem in terms of illicit substances,” Justice Minister Michael Keenan said. The drug is believed to be funding international criminal syndicates, with over 60% of Australia’s most wanted serious and organised crime figures believed to be involved in the methamphetamine trade.

The Drug Court

Drug Court programs seek to address the issue of drug dependency, rather than sending offenders to prison. They generally take referrals from Local and District Courts, and strive to tailor long term solutions which break the cycle of drug use and crime.

Mental Health Minister Martin Foley recognised the effectiveness of Dandenong’s Drug Court program in diverting offenders away from the criminal justice system. “The support then leads to better outcomes as people both get their lives back together, get off the drugs and end their crime careers,” he said. “It’s had remarkable success and we intend to roll that model out around Victoria.”

Participants in the Dandenong program were 30 per cent less likely to reoffend within 2 years than those sentenced in the regular court system. This has saved Victorian tax payers an estimated $3.8 million in enforcement costs. Drug Court Magistrate, Tony Parsons, has also highlighted the social and health cost savings of diverting low-level offenders away from prison.

With the increased funding, the Victorian Drug Court is expected to deal with 240 people each year, up from the current 70.

New South Wales

A 2015 study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics found that habitual users who commit drug-related crimes are less likely to reoffend when dealt with by the NSW Drug Court than when sent to prison.

Participants in the NSW program were found to be 17 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for any offence, 30 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for a violent offence and 38 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for a drug offence at any point during the follow-up period -which averaged 35 months.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that Drug Courts are more effective than prisons when it comes to reducing reoffending rates and the costs associated with enforcement.

It is hoped that our state will also capitalise on the long term economic and social benefits of diversionary programs by increasing investment to our own Drug Courts.

In a recent piece for Harper’s magazine titled ‘Legalize it all: How to Win the War on Drugs’, Dan Baum, a staff writer for The New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, released a frank quote from John Ehrlichman, a policy advisor for Richard Nixon and chief instigator of the war on drugs. The quote sparked controversy worldwide, shining new light on the reasons behind the Government’s war on drugs.

While writing a book on politics and drug prohibition in 1994, Baum had the chance to ask Ehrlichman a series of questions during a book signing. He recently revealed the details of their conversation:

“I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” Ehrlichman asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect.

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The War on Drugs was a Nixon invention but it’s been useful for political figures around the world, and its function as a political tool hasn’t changed. Being seen to fight drug crime is a great way for politicians to win votes, regardless of what the evidence tells us.

In New South Wales, the law and order auction that happens during each electoral season has seen ever-increasing penalties for drug offences, and more people sent through the criminal justice system. Last year, the Federal Government’s ‘Dob in a Dealer’ anti-ice campaign was widely criticised for being used as a political distraction to take attention off the Abbott-Government’s failing legislative agenda.

The Failed War On Drugs

Someone smart once quipped that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. This would seem to hold true in most places, except drug policy, where the Government is happy to continue burning tens of millions of dollars a year fighting a war on drugs – despite mounting expert opinion telling them to change tact.

The $1 million annual cost of the dob-in-a-dealer campaign would almost cover the $1.3 million needed to run a 10-bed rehabilitation unit, so a few more addicts don’t have months longer, often in custody, for a proper shot at beating addiction and getting their lives back-on-track.

According to Victoria’s former chief commissioner Ken Lay, this is where the Government should be looking to spend its resources:

“For social problems like these, law enforcement isn’t the answer. Unless you get into the primary prevention end, unless you stop the problem occurring you simply won’t arrest your way out of this,” Lay said last year.

“Ice has been on the scene for over a decade and we’ve had a really strong law enforcement approach and it hasn’t resolved the problem. The time’s right now to look at the other options.”

Mountains of research support this view. The Australian Medical Association has pointed out the obvious: “reducing drug addiction reduces demand for drugs, reduces crime, reduces harm to addicts and their families and reduces the burden on our health system – not to mention the courts, prisons and police.”

However, in New South Wales, the police and Government continue to treat drug use just like every other law and order problem – arrest and sent more people to prison for longer and the problem will vanish. Guess what, it hasn’t worked.

So what could work?

On July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalised the possession of small amount of every drug imaginable, from marijuana, to cocaine, to ice and heroin. Some thought the country would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted that usage among youths would skyrocket. Fifteen years later, neither of those things have happened.

Instead, Portugal has seen a drastic reduction in drug addiction. The number of addicts, at 100,000 before the policy was enacted, was halved in the space of 10 years. Portugal’s drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states.

This happened because Portugal moved from treating drug use as a criminal law problem, to a health issue. Possession and use was moved out of criminal courts and into special tribunals where each user’s unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. This is an important step to make – no-one chooses for drugs to overwhelm their lives and place them on the wrong path. Providing users with pathways outside the traditional justice system is a win-win for all involved.

This idea isn’t as farfetched as it sounds, and is beginning to affect drug laws around the world.

An international commission of medical experts, set up by the Lancet medical journal and Johns Hopkins University in the United States, recently called on the United Nations to back global drug decriminalisation, arguing that current policies lead to violence, deaths and the spread of disease, harming health and human rights.

In a report published on the eve of a special session of the UN’s General Assembly devoted to illegal narcotics, the group urged Governments around the world to begin decriminalising minor, non-violent drug offences involving the use, possession and sale of small quantities.

“The goal of prohibiting all use, possession, production, and trafficking of illicit drugs is the basis of many of our national drug laws, but these policies are based on ideas about drug use and drug dependence that are not scientifically grounded,” says Dr Chris Beyrer of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a member of the commission.

“The global ‘war on drugs’ has harmed public health, human rights and development. It’s time for us to rethink our approach to global drug policies, and put scientific evidence and public health at the heart of drug policy discussions.”

While politicians win votes, and private prison companies and criminal lawyers get rich, the hardworking taxpayer will continue to foot the bill for the failed war on drugs, and users who want to reach out will not only fail to get the support and assistance they need, but will be labelled as criminals in the process.

What is the most dangerous drug in the world?

If you’re thinking ice, heroin or crack cocaine, you’d be off the mark.

In fact, the most dangerous drugs in terms of addictiveness and harm are those which are not frequently reported on in the media – but are gradually developing a following across the world.

Here are some of the most dangerous – and relatively unknown – drugs in the world.

1. Krokodil

‘Krokodil’, also known as desomorphine, is a form of morphine derived from codeine. It was first synthesised in 1932 and intended as a painkiller – but it was outlawed once its potential dangers were reported.

Krokodil remained under the radar for many years – but in the 2000s, doctors in Russia began noticing an increase in patients appearing with sores on their bodies, resembling the scaly skin of a crocodile.

It was reported that heroin users, unable to afford the high cost of the drug, were manufacturing their own desomorphine substitute – purchasing codeine from chemists and combining it with poisonous chemicals including paint thinner and the red phosphorous found on matchboxes. The drug gives users a high that is similar to heroin – at a much lower cost.

But the side-effects of using the drug are concerning. The toxic chemicals used to produce the drug damages the skin and vital organs – causing skin and flesh to rot off and exposing the bone underneath. In many cases, users have had to have their limbs amputated, as the surrounding tissue became so infected. Organ failure and permanent brain damage can also occur, and most users reportedly die within two or three years of becoming addicted to the drug.

The krokodil crisis became so severe in Russia that in 2012, the government introduced new restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications. Since then, the number of people using the drug has declined – but not stamped out altogether.

2. Devil’s Breath

Devil’s Breath, also known as scopolamine, is a dangerous new drug emerging in South America.

Derived from the beautiful flowers of the Borrachero tree, it has the potential to wipe a person’s short term memory, and is administered by simply blowing a white powder in the unsuspecting victim’s face.

According to police, this method has been used by street gangs to drug unsuspecting tourists – before robbing, sexually assaulting, or, in one horrifying case, removing their kidney. High doses can cause coma and even death.

Those who have felt the drug’s effects say they have no recollection of their ordeal – with one woman saying she had no memory of helping thieves ramsack her own house.
Scopolamine is so powerful that it was previously trialled by the CIA during the Cold War as a method of interrogating prisoners of war.

3. Bath Salts

‘Bath salts’ are a drug resembling the crystalline substance dissolved in bathwater. It is a type of synthetic cathinone, which is increasingly being used as a substitute for other drugs, including MDMA, LSD and cocaine.

Bath salts refer to a wide range of drugs known by various names, including Flakka, Bloom, Cloud Nine, Lunar Wave and Vanilla Sky.

Side effects include paranoia, sleeplessness, hallucinations and panic attacks – and some users have experienced effects so severe that they have brutally attacked other people.

In one case, a Miami man was shot dead by police after attempting to bite off chunks of another man’s face.

What’s more, bath salts are notoriously addictive – with a recent study suggesting that the drug is more addictive than ice.

4. Whoonga

In some African communities with high incidence of HIV/AIDS, a deadly new drug has emerged – called whoonga.

Whoonga is created by mixing drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS with other toxic substances, including rat poison and tobacco.

The drug is provided in a white powder, which is then smoked. Side effects include anxiousness, aggression, and heart and lung problems, and even deadly heart attacks.

The drug is so addictive that many become hooked after using it just once. And at just $3 a pop, whoonga is one of the cheapest drugs around.

Another concerning aspect of the spread of whoonga is the devastating indirect impact on HIV/AIDS sufferers – with manufacturers robbing sufferers of their live-saving medications.

5. GHB (Fantasy)

GHB is a depressant drug which has recently grown in popularity, especially in the nightclub scene – with users taking the colourless, odourless liquid to relax.

GHB’s effects are often compared to ecstasy (MDMA) – and for this reason, it is sometimes called ‘liquid ecstasy.’

But the highly addictive drug comes with a long list of dangerous side effects – including memory loss, blackouts, seizures, respiratory problems, coma, and even death.

Because of its sedative properties, GHB has been nicknamed the ‘date rape drug’ – used to spike the drinks of unsuspecting victims before sexually assaulting them.

So there you have it – five of the most harmful and addictive drugs around.

Late last year, we published a blog about the NSW Police Force’s controversial plans to expand roadside drug testing across the state.

The announcement received a mixed reaction – with police claiming that an increase in drug testing is necessary to reduce fatal collisions attributed to drug driving – while others, including Greens MP David Shoebridge, arguing that the effectiveness of roadside lick tests is questionable because they only detect the presence of illicit drugs – rather than the amount.

As Mr Shoebridge point out, this means that drivers who take drugs days or weeks before driving could potentially test positive – despite not being under the influence at the time of driving.

Mr Carrall’s Case

This was the exact predicament that NSW man Joseph Ross Carrall found himself in when he tested positive for cannabis in June 2015 – nine days after consuming the drug.

Mr Carrall was charged with drug driving and his case proceeded to a defended hearing in Lismore Local Court last week.

During the hearing, Mr Carrall testified that he last used cannabis nine days before driving – and had followed the advice of a police officer who previously told him to wait one week after using the drug before driving.

Mr Carrall raised the defence of ‘honest and reasonable mistake of fact,’ arguing that he relied on the advice of the police officer and only drove after he honestly believed the cannabis had cleared his system, and that his belief was reasonable in the circumstances.

Honest and Reasonable Mistake

In ‘strict liability’ cases – such as drink driving, drug driving and driving whilst suspended or disqualified – a person must be found ‘not guilty’ if they are able to establish that they ‘honestly’ believed that they did not commit the offence (eg have drugs in their system) and the belief was ‘reasonable’ in all of the circumstances.

The first requirement of ‘honesty’ is not normally difficult to establish; for example, in drink driving cases, a person who drives the ‘morning after’ may honestly believe the alcohol in their system is gone.

The more difficult part is proving that the belief was ‘reasonable’. It may, for example, be reasonable if a person’s drink was spiked and they thought they were tired rather than drunk, or if they relied on specific information from an expert or person in authority before engaging in the otherwise illegal conduct.

The Verdict

Lismore Local Court Magistrate David Heilpern accepted Mr Carrall’s defence and found him not guilty.

Such a finding is rare in drug driving cases – with just 4 drivers out of 3043 being acquitted between January and September 2015.

In terms of ‘reasonableness’, the Magistrate took into account the police officer’s advice that Mr Carrall could drive a week after smoking cannabis. He also considered the fact that it is difficult for people to know when drugs are no longer in their system.

Whereas in drink driving cases, there is a wealth of information about the fact that alcohol can remain in your system for over 24 hours, there is little information about how long different types of drugs remain in the system.

What Does This Mean for Drug Driving Laws?

Some argue that the decision opens the floodgates to contesting drug driving cases.

However, it should be noted that the defence of ‘honest and reasonable mistake’ has always been available in drug driving cases, and the facts of Mr Carrall’s case are quite helpful – especially the advice from police that he would be able to drive after a week. No doubt that if police have any sense, they will cease giving such advice to motorists.

Having said that, the lack of information about how long different drugs stay in a person’s system makes the defence of ‘honest and reasonable mistake’ a viable option where drivers are tested a significant period of time after having taken the drug, especially if they have received advice from a doctor or information through independent research that the drugs would no longer be present in their system.

Being caught with drugs like marijuana, ecstacy and cocaine can result in heavy penalties and a criminal conviction – but did you know there are intoxicating drugs you can buy and consume legally?

Most of these ‘legal highs’ are traditionally used by ethnic groups as part of their social customs, rather than partying and having a good time. And unsurprisingly, while they have physical effects on the user, they are generally milder than most illicit drugs.

Here we discuss some of the ‘legal highs’ that you can get in Australia.

Khat

Khat is derived from the leaves and buds of the flowering Khat plant, which grows mainly in African and Middle Eastern countries. It is used in some Muslim, Somali and Yemeni cultures, in which users either chew the leaves and buds of the plant, or smoke, chew or drink dried product.

Khat is a stimulant drug, and short-term effects include accelerated heartbeat and breathing, high body temperature, increased sociability and reduced appetite. Some users compare the effects to coffee, in so far as it creates mild euphoria and excitement, and can even induce hyperactivity.

Khat can have unpleasant and even dangerous side effects – including constipation, dilated pupils, mental health problems, impotence and mouth sores. Long term use can lead to addiction, and users who stop suddenly can experience withdrawal symptoms including tiredness, trembling and problems functioning in everyday life.

Drug laws do not apply to khat in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania – but it is illegal and regulated under drug laws in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the ACT.

Although the Australian government previously allowed up to 5 kilograms of khat to be imported for ‘personal use,’ the law was recently changed to prohibit importation except for medical or scientific purposes.

Kava

Kava is a depressant derived from the kava shrub. It is used in many Pacific Island cultures, including Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and Vanuatu – as well as many Indigenous communities.

Generally, the root and stump of the shrub is ground and soaked in water to produce a kind of tea, the consumption of which creates a sense of relaxation, sleepiness, reduced appetite and numbness in the mouth. Long-term effects include breathlessness, chest pains, malnutrition, skin problems and exacerbating mental health issues.

Current laws allow people to bring up to two kilograms of kava into Australia, but there are calls to prohibit importation due primarily to the drug’s impact on Aboriginal communities.

Kava has already been banned in Western Australia and the Northern Territory amidst fears that it is causing social destruction within Aboriginal communities.

In New South Wales, kava is classified as a Schedule 4 drug under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, meaning it is legal to possess with a written prescription from an authorised practitioner.

Alcohol and Tobacco

Many people do not classify alcohol and tobacco as drugs – but a staple of modern life. Yet in reality, these ‘legal drugs’ can be even more harmful than illegal ones.

A study published in 2010 found that alcohol was the most harmful drug when rated according to 16 criteria – including impairment of mental functioning, criminality, injury, mortality, dependence, economic cost, family adversity, and loss of relationships. Out of a 100-point harmfulness scale, alcohol scored 72, while heroin scored 55, and methamphetamine scored 33.

Tobacco also ranked above illegal drugs such as GHB, ketamine, LSD and ecstasy, with a score of 26, primarily due to the high mortality rate of users.

Incredibly, the least harmful drugs were those which are illegal, yet commonly used in the community. Magic mushrooms were found to be the least harmful drugs, with a score of 6, while ecstasy scored 9.

Around 1 million Australians suffer from depression at any one time.

The debilitating mental health condition is characterised by prolonged periods of ‘feeling low,’ a lack of energy and irritability, and a loss of interest in activities which are usually enjoyable. Chronic sufferers can remain bed ridden for prolonged periods of time and be unable to perform basic day-to-day activities.

While there are a range of medications available to treat the condition, the Black Dog Institute estimates that around a third of sufferers are unresponsive to anti-depressants.

The Institute hopes that a proposed new study will help sufferers in the future.

The Federal Government has recently announced a grant of $2 million to research the effectiveness of ketamine in treating depression.

Ketamine, also known as ‘Special K,’ is an anaesthetic and animal tranquiliser that is also used recreationally as a hallucinogenic drug. It can cause users to feel euphoric, experience feelings of physical detachment, confusion and clumsiness, as well as causing increased heart rate, slurred speech, anxiety and blurred vision.

It is currently classified as a Schedule 8 ‘drug of addiction’ under the NSW Poisons List – meaning that it can only be obtained with a valid prescription from a doctor. Using ketamine without a valid prescription can result in charges for drug possession, or for self-administration of prohibited drugs.

However, current research suggests that, used properly, ketamine could have positive short-term benefits for those who suffer from depression.

The Trial

Expected to commence in April 2016, the trial proposes to study the effects of ketamine on 200 participants who have been unresponsive to traditional anti-depressant medications. It will compare those effects against a control group who will be given a placebo.

The study will be headed by Professor Colleen Loo, a clinical and research psychiatrist based at St George Hospital and the Black Dog Institute, and will be run in joint partnership with the University of New South Wales.

It will aim to investigate whether ketamine is an effective and safe long-term treatment for depression. According to Professor Loo, previous studies suggest that a single treatment of the drug can ease the symptoms of depression in just a few hours, with the effects lasting up to several days.

Past Controversies

The use of ketamine as a treatment for depression has been the subject of controversy in the past, with an ABC investigation discovering that one business had been selling ‘take home kits’ containing up to 10 doses of ketamine.

Aura Medical, a commercial clinic based in Sydney and Melbourne, came under fire earlier this year after it was found to be selling the DIY treatment kits, and showing clients how to inject the drug without medical supervision. The clinic was selling the packages for up to $1,200 for a four week course of eight injections.

Those attending the clinic told the media that they were never informed that the substance was not approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and were not offered any other treatment options or professional support. Patients were often given the drug after a short consultation, and did not require confirmation from their GP.

After finishing the initial course, the clinic told users that they would require further courses as it would be dangerous to stop the treatment suddenly. The clinic ended up pocketing tens of thousands of dollars from vulnerable people who were desperate for a solution to their condition.

The Black Dog Institute is concerned that such schemes could undermine their research, and has issued a statement advising people not to attend similar ketamine clinics, as the long-term effects of ketamine are not yet known.

The Insitute has also expressed concerns that giving users free reign over the drug without professional support could increase the risk of self-harm or even suicide.

Speaking to the media, Professor Loo said:

‘It’s very important… [that] this kind of treatment is done in a very carefully monitored clinical context with experts in psychiatry and mental health. If people try to bypass that and prematurely use it clinically, and then maybe find people are having terrible side effects…that could derail the whole process of developing what could actually be a useful drug.’

If the drug is proven to be effective, it could ultimately be approved as an anti-depressant by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, with users taking the drug in close consultation with medical professionals.