Re: "Teens and pot use: Parents, here's what you need to talk about," Jan. 2 Colorado Style story. After reading Suzanne S. Brown's article, I was floored by the number of health and mental repercussions marijuana poses. Fifty to 70 percent more carcinogens than tobacco? Mental health treatment for teens and young adults? The federal excise tax on a single pack of cigarettes is $1.01. The state of Colorado's is 16 percent. These help offset the health costs associated with the use of tobacco. Colorado's meager tax on marijuana will never relieve the financial burden marijuana is laying on our society. Ken L. Russell, Brighton [end]
Kev Wadeson's remarks (Mercury, June 20) about safe injecting rooms were riddled with inaccuracies and misconceptions. He thoroughly confuses the Swedish and Swiss approaches. I believe he intends to attack the Swiss approach of heroin prescription trials rather than the Swedish approach of zero tolerance against drug use. However, his comments - even assuming they refer to Switzerland - are incorrect. Switzerland's drug-related deaths have fallen in recent years, since the introduction of their heroin prescription trials. The safe injecting room trials intended for Australia, rather than "killing addicts slowly" as Mr Wadeson contends, actually increase the odds of a heroin user recovering. [continues 140 words]
M. B. PAUL wrote to your paper (Letters, 28 June) to commend the stance taken by MLA Dave Rugendyke over the safe-injecting-room funding. I would like to take the opportunity to publicly condemn Rugendyke's action, which can only be described as an act of legislative vandalism. M. B. Paul also attacked the injecting room, claiming it would not help the drug problem and would only "keep addicts alive longer". I would have thought keeping addicts alive was a very good reason for providing the injecting room. Paul apparently believes addicts are better off dead, an attitude I find repulsive and inhumane. I am sure even MLA Rugendyke would agree with me here. Ken Russell, North Wollongong, NSW kenbo01@ozemail.com.au [end]
Sir-Professor Fergusson asks in your article on teenage drug use (May 15) whether decriminalisation further increases the use of cannabis. A study by the Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia into the effects of South Australia's cannabis decriminalisation scheme said: "The study showed there was no evidence that the introduction of expiation (on-the-spot fines) for marijuana use has led to any increase in the prevalence or intensity and frequency of marijuana use." A study by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, in addition to rejecting the cannabis gateway theory (as countless reports have done), concluded that there was no evidence that moves by the ACT, South Australia, and the Northern Territory to adopt limited cannabis decriminalisation regimes had increased use of the drug. The lesson is clear. Cannabis is widely used in the community, mostly without harm. Decriminalisation will not increase use, but will improve social outcomes for cannabis users. Ken Russell, North Wollongong, NSW [end]
I would like to thank MLA Dave Rugendyke for taking an interest in drug-law reform issues and hope he will continue to educate himself in this area. I am, however, concerned that he feels the need to increase penalties for cannabis use at a time when most states are moving in the opposite direction. Without entering into debate regarding the possible dangers associated with cannabis use, surely the critical point is whether increasing penalties actually decreases use; and whether they do so without adversely impacting social outcomes for users. [continues 175 words]
I am, however, concerned that he feels the need to increase penalties for cannabis use at a time when most states are moving in the opposite direction. Without entering into debate regarding the possible dangers associated with cannabis use, surely the critical point is whether increasing penalties actually decreases use; and whether they do so without adversely impacting social outcomes for users. Both these issues were addressed in recent studies by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre and reported in the national papers. They compared the effects of Western Australia's strict prohibition of cannabis use with South Australia's infringement system. Their conclusions were that neither system deterred users, with up to 90 per cent of interviewees saying it had not affected their cannabis use. [continues 104 words]
I WOULD like to thank MLA Dave Rugendyke for taking an interest in drug-law reform issues and hope he will continue to educate himself in this area. I am, however, concerned that he feels the need to increase penalties for cannabis use at a time when most states are moving in the opposite direction. Without entering into debate regarding the possible dangers associated with cannabis use, surely the critical point is whether increasing penalties actually decreases use; and whether they do so without an adverse impact on social outcomes for users. [continues 159 words]
I WOULD like to thank MLA Dave Rugendyke for taking an interest in drug-law reform issues and hope he will continue to educate himself in this area. I am, however, concerned that he feels the need to increase penalties for cannabis use at a time when most states are moving in the opposite direction. Without entering into debate regarding the possible dangers associated with cannabis use, surely the critical point is whether increasing penalties actually decreases use; and whether they do so without an adverse impact on social outcomes for users. [continues 154 words]
PAUL Gray's article "Soft heroin talk fails" (Herald Sun, December 17), discussing teenagers and drugs, was strange in that it contained no input from teenagers. The absence of teenagers allowed Mr Gray to mould them into people who are apparently completely unable to make discerning decisions of their own. The smart ones, we are told, interpret strategies designed to save the lives of heroin users as justification for experimenting with the drug. We can only assume that the less-intelligent apparently try it without any consideration. [continues 113 words]
IVAN HOY'S letter "No more trips to Civic for me!" (16 December) succinctly highlighted the hypocrisy of many members of our society. Mr Hoy would do well to consider that while Civic does not yet have any safe injecting rooms it has many safe-imbibing rooms: the pubs, the restaurants, the bars. Several hundred users of these establishments regularly mix with other people using Civic, often not long after they have had their last alcohol fix. I am sure I will be criticised for my comparing alcohol and heroin, pubs and safe injecting rooms; and in some ways the criticism will be justified. After all, alcohol is far more strongly correlated with violence than heroin, and a drunkard poses more of a risk to the average citizen than someone high on heroin. Further, pubs are anything but safe, with no medical staff present and, according to a recent Australian Institute of Criminology report on violence, they are quite dangerous. Many of the heroin users which so offend Mr Hoy are already present in Civic, wandering around after their last "hit". Quite possibly, Mr Hoy would be unable to identify them; they don't generally act like drunks. KEN RUSSELL North Wollongong, NSW - --- Checked-by: Richard Lake [end]
THE REASONS behind our differing approaches to tobacco and heroin are really not difficult to understand ("Compare action against tobacco", Letters, 9 November). Our historic policy with regard to heroin has been to attempt to imprison users, subject them to a life of survival via property crime, and death as a result of unknown purity levels. These are not effects of drugs, but effects of prohibitionist law. The calls for various harm-minimisation strategies, such as safe injecting rooms and heroin trials, are attempts to mitigate the dangers to users instituted by our legal system. The goal is: save and improve the lives of those who are addicted to heroin. [continues 123 words]
A COURT designed only for drug addicts where treatment is available as a sentencing option is under consideration by the State Government. It was revealed last night Premier Bob Carr is examining setting up a pilot drug court modelled on a successful US scheme, to test its usefulness here. Under the US model, junkies who plead guilty in the court can choose to enter a 12-month rehabilitation program instead of jail. Mr Carr will meet today with Sydney lawyer Ross Goodridge, an advocate of the courts who has spent time in the US researching their value. [continues 285 words]
In a predictable response to the new Victorian cautionary system, Piers Akerman (Daily Telegraph, July 9) leads us on a labyrinthine journey bereft of logic and real comment. As far as I can ascertain, Mr Akerman has decided that cannabis cautions, regardless of their potential benefits, can be neatly moulded to fit his usual attack on those who are "soft on drugs". Akerman dismisses the arguments for the scheme as mere "rationalisations" or poor substitutes for "spending more money emphasising the truly horrific face of drug abuse". With his emotive images of the "eagar pusher", evil pro-druggists and our perpetually innocent and impossibly ignorant children, Mr Akerman drags us into his personal fantasy land. Ken Russell North Wollongong - --- Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson) [end]
As far as I can ascertain, Mr Akerman has decided that cannabis cautions, regardless of their potential benefits, can be neatly moulded to fit his usual attack on those who are "soft on drugs". Akerman dismisses the arguments for the scheme as mere "rationalisations" or poor substitutes for "spending more money emphasising the truly horrific face of drug abuse". With his emotive images of the "eagar pusher", evil pro-druggists and our perpetually innocent and impossibly ignorant children, Mr Akerman drags us into his personal fantasy land. Ken Russell North Wollongong [end]
Father Cusack believes his stance is "governed by the most up-to-date information". I don't think so. Almost all major studies of drug policy from around the world - including the Victorian Government's Pennington report - concluded that our current drug laws need to be reformed, if not revoked. Father Cusack could find many of these policy documents via the Internet's library of drug policy at http://www.druglibrary.org, both for and against change. A major argument advanced by those who oppose change to our drugs laws is the concern that such change might send "the wrong message" to our children. [continues 67 words]
