Drugs and economy

I would like to call your attention to a statement made in the "Economics Monitor" Oct. 1997, a report prepared by Access Economics (one of Australia's leading economic consultancy firms. Advisor's to business, government departments and industry).

Quote;- "Prohibition has not prevented widespread drug use, but has created a criminal run industry which corrupts law enforcement agencies".

So I repeat an earlier question.

What is the actual agenda of the Northern Territory Police, or certain individuals therein, in putting so much time, effort and public money into targeting the cannabis market in Darwin, (which has traditionally been a local economy market)? Thence forcing the market to look elsewhere for other alternatives to alcohol.

I have pointed out in previous letters where the market drifts to and the social consequences of that drift.

Ironic really that it's the police who usually have the most trouble in dealing with the situation they create.

Robert Fyffe
The Network Against Prohibition
The Narrows.
2 Dec 2007

Soft On Crime?

Soft on crime?

Now where have I heard that line before. Oh, that's right, only at every single Territory election ever held.

The Martin-led Labor Government has been quite diligent in using the Northern Territory "Misuse Of Drugs Act" against the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory in order to produce incarceration rate figures to prove how tough they are.

At a time when there's great concern over the stability of the remote communities, our Government has been systematically removing the most stable demographic from those communities, (the 25 - 45 year old women) who are simply trying to take home enough pot to get them through the next six months of utter boredom (but of course that amounts to a "trafficable quantity").

As a result, the Labor Government has been incarcerating Aboriginal people at a rate not seen since the days when Aboriginal people were rounded up en mass to be place into the protective custody of the ever-loving Christians.

Does our Government have some hidden agenda for the further destabilisation of the remote communities?

Is this being done to further justify the Federal Government's 'Intervention" strategy?


Robert Fyffe
The Narrows

It's Time For A Change

Dear editor,

I would like to call your attention to a letter I wrote (and you published) on 30th March 2007. A letter you entitled "Darwin heading for POT drought".

In this letter I pointed out that everywhere in Australia where the police have picked the easy target cannabis to provide them with photo opportunities, for the propaganda/misinformation campaign, which are supposed to have us all believe they are winning the "war on drugs", we have seen an increase in the consumption of alcohol and amphetamines, which then leads to a breakdown of social order, and an increase in violent crime.

Given the reports that have surfaced recently regarding the crime rate in Darwin,

What can I say? Told you so?

It is time for this Government to deal with the issue of recreational drug use in our society in a socially responsible way. Or it is time for this Government to step aside for someone who can.

Stop blindly following the USA into yet another "war". This one on our own citizens.

Robert Fyffe
Network Against Prohibition

(Published, NT News, 8th Oct.)


Well surprise, surprise.

The Channel Nine News tonight reports that public displays of violence and violent crime have increased 72% in the last twelve months.

Is it simply a coincidence that this sharp rise has coincided with the police efforts to remove cannabis from the the market here in Darwin?

Now the party goers in Darwin are traveling on a mix of alcohol and amphetamine, a far more dangerous combination than cannabis and alcohol.

This is a situation entirely of the Government's making , as they have continued their assault on the relatively peaceful cannabis users and their supply lines, and as a result have inadvertently promoted the use of speed, while all the time ignoring the situation that has been growing in Mitchell Street on Friday and Saturday nights.

I challenge any, or all, of our Government ministers to walk, yes WALK, up Mitchell street at 4:30am on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

Clare Martin and co, you must deal with this situation responsibly and with maturity before the next generation of civic leaders are rendered incapable by your ignorance.


Robert Fyffe
The Network Against Prohibition

Save the Kiddies

(Published, NT News, Wed 7th Aug.)


Well the stage has been set.

Little Johnnie's off on a crusade with Mal as his first Lieutenant to save the Aboriginal kids from being thrown overboard by their people.

A situation they have been orchestrating for about eleven years now.

Claire, you could jump on the band wagon here and go on a campaign to save our children from death by ignorance.

As long as drugs are illegal our children have far greater access to the market than they would if all drugs were legal, not just alcohol and nicotine (two of the most damaging and addictive drugs known to man), and the industry properly regulated, just like the alcohol industry.

Think carefully on this issue, the future of Territory children is at stake here Claire.

End the immoral, expensive and failing "Tough on drugs" stance.

To control the industry, you must be the one running the industry.
(I often suspect that some among you are, most likely those who most vocally oppose legalisation).

Given the evidence, growing by the truck load around the world, to support legalisation of drugs as being the best way to deal with the issue of drug use in society.

One would be quite right in suspecting that someone vehemently opposed to the legalisation has a vested interest in the matter.

Stop confusing and deliberately blurring any distinction between drug use and drug addiction.

That is irresponsible education.

We should be treating drug addiction as a health issue.

Why do we still punish people for having a medical condition?

What year is this?

It's time for some of that "Forward thinking and progressive style of Government" you promised us.

Smelly Justice

Perhaps my years of drug use have made me paranoid.

And perhaps the chain of events were purely co-incidental.

A person known to me, who stayed for a short time at the same residence as I, was involved in a traffic accident.

At the time he was unlicensed, driving an unregistered and unroadworthy vehicle (the brakes were shot), drove through a red light (speed undetermined), t-boned another car traveling through a green light, killed the passenger of that car, then took off and went into hiding for a week before handing himself in.

Shortly after hearing from his lawyer that he would only face an array of minimal charges (basically get off with a slap on the wrist), my residence was raided by the drug squad, who expected to find a fully operating speed kitchen.
They had a warrant, signed by a legitimate JP, raised based on "information received".
They left with my half a gram of personal pot and a lot of egg on their faces.

We can not blame the Court for this travesty, they can only proceed on the charges being presented.

One has to question what processes took place behind the doors at the DPP.

Definition of Dangerous

I wonder if any of our well informed and intelligent politicians can explain to all why cannabis is classified as a schedule 2 dangerous drug.

What information by way of scientific studies and social studies were conducted to justify coming to the conclusion that cannabis is so dangerous.

When considered in the light of comparative studies between the physical, psychological and social effects of alcohol and cannabis, I personally cannot find any reason why one should be considered dangerous and the other not.

In fact, our government discriminates in favour of the more harmful substance. This doesn't make sense and does not constitute good governance.

Prohibition is therefore unconstitutional.

Living in Fear

Hi,

Just passing on some interesting observations that tie in well with the drug prohibition theme.

Winston Churchill once said: ‘what good is freedom when your people live in fear!?’

When a government institutionalizes intimidation and repression to impose its own norms and values upon and over the identity of a sub-culture then it is time for that sub-culture to speak up if they are not to lose their soul.

Hidden agenda?

The question has to be asked.

Just what is the current agenda of the NT police?


Ther lastest campaign to remove cannabis from the market has been remarkably effective.

Darwin is facing its first drought in the twelve years I've been here.

Fortunately for me, I'm just a pot smoker (of thirty years) and not an addict. So I don't feel the need to turn to an alternative. I'm not happy about the situation, but I will ride it out.

There are many others in Darwin who smoke pot to reduce their need for more harmful alternatives. Alternatives that are now more readily available than ever before. The demand for and supply of speed (more sensationally named ICE in the media) has increased dramatically over the last month.

Others are consuming far greater quantities of alcohol than they did previously. Some are doing both, a dangerous combination, and a recipe for increased social disorder.

In the last month the NT police have set harm reduction strategies back 20 years. They are the cause of the "ICE EPIDEMIC".

House breaking and associated crime is set to go through the roof. Just as has happened in all the other cities when the same strategy has been employed. Public disorder and alcohol fueled violence will become much more prevalent.

To reiterate the question.

What is your agenda?

It's obviously not in the best interests of the community.

Who's interests are you acting in?

Are you trying to increase the demand for your own prouduct by taking out the competition?

Showing blatant disregard for the wellbeing of the community is something we have come to expect from our "FINEST", so this sounds quite plausable to me.

Busted update no.2

Well I attended Darwin Magistrates Court this morning (21st Mar) for mention of the matter of "possess cannabis".
Surprisingly there were very few people in court, so my mention came up by 9:15.
I entered a plea of "not guilty".
When asked if I would like time to get legal advice I stated that I would probably be representing myself in this matter.
The court set a date for the contest hearing at 10:00am on 2nd May.

The contest hearing is something the NT court system has introduced in the last couple of years.
It's like, before the Magistrate, each party presents a statement (you show me yours and I'll show you mine), then the Magistrate gets out the ruler.... and determines if the prosecution has enough to justify an actual hearing.
Basically it's the last chance for either the prosecution to drop the charges, or for me to change my plea (no chance of the latter I'm afraid). All a complete waste of the courts time as far as I can see, just part of their intimidation tactics to squeeze out as many guilty pleas as possible to avoid taking up valuable court time.
However for one who has no plan to plead guilty, it's just a waste of the court's and my time.

So then the Magistrate sets a date for the hearing.

The last time I went through this process was for an alleged traffic infringment about a year ago. In that case we got through the mention, the contest hearing and then two weeks before the actual hearing I got a letter from DPP (Department Of Public Prosecutions), to the effect that, upon reflection, the DPP had decided not to proceed with the matter.
So, at least, that time around I called their bluff. It may not be so easy this time.
With all the "tough on drugs" rhetoric being thrown around, they may be looking for a "whipping boy" or two.
This is all about politics, not justice.
The police have already implied this by their statement in the precis presented at the mention that at the time of the offence "THE DEFENDANT WAS A CORE-GROUP MEMBER OF THE NETWORK AGAINST PROHIBITION (NAP)".

Interestingly, as I left the court room, I was approached by a lawyer asking if I required representation, or had I been in touch with Legal Aid. I told him I was reluctant to go to Legal Aid since, in my experience, they were only interested in assisting guilty pleas and plea bargaining, whereas I had no intention to do any "bargaining", and I could not afford a high priced lawyer to conduct my defence.

I don't know if he's actually seen the brief and has an interest in the case or he's just trying to drum up business. What is interesting is that he's a lawyer known to have very tight connections with the CLP (Country Liberal Party), the encumbant Government's main opposition party and arch nemesis. I thought this strange as the CLP is not a big fan of NAP either.
Perhaps he's unaware of the connection of this case with NAP just yet, or maybe he is aware, and his motives are political too.
Anyway, he has offered to listen to my story for free and determine from there whether to take up the case (billing his services to legal aid), or not. We'll see.

Prohibition

According to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey approximately 46% of Australians have used illicit drugs at some time.
This figure is unlikely to be reliably accurate given the climate of fear caused by the Governments propaganda war on drugs and criminalisation of drug users.
Many drug users will not admit to their use even in anonymous and confidential surveys. I suspect the true figure to be well over 50%.

Given that drug usage has been a part of human culture for many thousands of years, this makes the Governments "war on drugs" akin to the cultural cleansing carried out by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, or Adolf Hitler's cultural cleansing carried out against the Jews.

When a Government declares war on a sector of their own population it is called CIVIL WAR. It is only the climate of fear that keeps the Government in control.
The minority is oppressing the majority. We only need to look to South Africa in recent history to see the (inevitable) end result of such action. When the oppressed lose their fear, the Government will fall.

It is therefore in the best interests of our Government, and for the sake of stability in this nation, for our Government to cease this insane and immoral war immediately. Before it's too late.

Have we learnt nothing from the days of alcohol prohibition in the United States?
It seems that the US has learnt nothing from their past experience. Must Australia continue to blindly follow the US down this socially destructive path?

Prohibition has had absolutely no effect on the supply and demand for various drugs. If anything it has worsened the situation. The police have, for too long, taken the soft option and gone after the easy target drug marijuana simply to produce headline stories. In reducing the supply of pot they have increased the demand for other substances.. The current "ice epidemic" is of the Governments making. People will continue to exercise their right to relaxation and enjoyment of life, but not everyone wants to, or can safely, consume only alcohol.

Prohibition is a very expensive failed policy. One which our Government continues to throw money at to no avail. Taxpayers money that would be better spent into the education and health systems. The cost, to the health system, of dealing with the small minority of drug users that suffer health problems as a result of their drug use would be far less than the amount of money being currently wasted on policing and incarcerating ordinary taxpaying citizens who choose to use a drug other than alcohol for their relaxation and enjoyment.

The drug industry should be legitimised and regulated to become a contributor to the economy through employment and associated taxes, rather than a criminal run industry that corrupts police, politicians and the judiciary, and is a drain on the economy. People should be educated properly with accurate information and encouraged to moderation, not fed a load of sensationalistic propaganda (lies).

If the alternatives to alcohol were as readily available as alcohol in quality controlled, known dosage forms, legitimately produced at reasonable cost, the result would be a huge reduction in crime rates. We would, with one single change of policy, free up our police, courts and jails and could afford more teachers and doctors.

Think about it people, PROHIBITION IS NOT WORKING.

Neo-Nazi policies

For those of you hankering for a return to the "good old days", fear not, we are there.
Right back to early 1940's Germany when Jew hunting was all the rage.
Or is it the late 1600's and witch hunting?

In October of 2006 my house was raided by eight storm troopers (or was it the puritan army) and a dog, on the suspicion (no actual evidence) that I was harbouring Jews (or witches)

Unfortunately the troopers/puritans found nothing but an old skull cap/straw broom, for which I have been charged with possession of a dangerous object.

Now the fun begins, as I expect to spend the next couple of years fighting human rights abuses through our politically motivated "justice" system. Tieing up our courts in a wholely justifiable use of taxpayer donations.

Busted update no.1

Well finally.

On Wednesday 12th March, only 4 1/2 months after the offence, I received my

"SUMMONS TO A PERSON CHARGED WITH AN INDICTABLE OFFENCE"

I am charged with: "unlawfully possessed cannabis plant material, a dangerous drug specified in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act:

Contrary to Section 9(1) and (2)f (ii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act."

I am therefore commanded to appear on Wednesday, the 21st March 2007.

at 9:00 AM at the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, Nichols Place at CAVENAGH STREET, DARWIN.

And so the fun begins.

Drug price questionable

REGARDING the front page story of Northern Territory News March 1: “Police seize $3 million cannabis haul”.
(published)

sent to NT News.

Where do you get your pricing from? Is this a figure you just plucked out of thin air for the sensational value?

Or was this the figure provided by the NT Police?

Either way, it is so far exaggerated as to be pure propaganda.

Three million dollars for 30kg breaks down to $100 per gram, about four times the actual street value of the stuff.

If this is the price the police are expecting to get for it, then I’m glad I switched dealers.

Rob Fyffe, The Narrows

(NT News Editor) WHERE do we get the figure from? Well, Rob, if you read the story properly, you’d see it right there in the report. Drug Squad Superintendent Peter Gordon is quoted as saying “we believe (the drugs were) destined for Darwin and possibly remote communities where it could fetch … up to $100 a gram”.

Addiction IS a mental health issue

Re; The story in the NT News, March 1st, "Mun desparate for sniffer son help"


This is a prime example of the inadequacy of the NT health department, and the "service" it provides.

According to the "authorities". - Those who work in the field of addiction through Alcoholics Anon., Narcotics Anon. and Gamblers Anon. Addiction IS a mental health issue.

It is an unfortunate consequence of our Government's immoral approach to the issues surrounding drug use within our society.
By demonising all involved, they persecute responsible users, victimise addicts and refuse to address drug abuse in a responsible way.

The demonisation and criminalisation of addicts allows the hospital staff to feel justified in ignoring people who are in desparate need of responsible health treatment.

Busted

And Now For Something Completely Different

By now, those of you who regularly read this site, will have read about the raid on the NAP headquarters that took place on the 27th of October 2006, (as reported in the latest news from NAP).

I'm the one who ended up receiving an infringement notice for possession of cannabis (personal).
An "offence" which carries a penalty of $200 + $10 levy for purposes of section 25B of Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act. Total penalty $210.

The whole episode was possibly the most civilized drug bust I've ever been subjected to.
This was not my first.

Flashback...

I have been busted before, many years ago, in Adelaide (S.A.). But that involved the front door being smashed off it's hinges and the house being generally torn apart. Ironic that in both cases the police left with approx. the same amount of pot.
That bust took place in the early 80's, just prior to the decriminalisation of cannabis possession in South Australia. Consequently, in that case I was not issued an infringement notice. Instead I was summonsed to appear in court. Just a few months later the possession of cannabis was decriminalised. The main reason for the decriminalisation was because so many people were being busted with paltry amounts of pot that the court system was becoming clogged and building a massive backlog of cases. Hence the Government of the day downgraded the possession of cannabis from a criminal offence to a misdemeanour offence, and began issuing infringement notices instead of summonses. This was done in the hope that people would just pay the fine and free up the courts.
However, in my case I appeared in court to plead guilty. But then I was young and naive and complient. My defence was that I had been smoking pot for some time in preference to drinking alcohol, and that I was not about to stop regardless of the outcome of the case. I was, in fact, pretty stoned at the time. However, the magistrate seemed to appreciate the honesty and issued the lightest penalty for all the possession cases that came before the court on that day. The fine, plus court costs came to approx. $140.

Now back to the present...

At approx 3:00pm on Friday October 27th, 8 drug squad officers and a sniffer dog (Monty) arrived at the front door of the NAP house, politely knocked, showed that they had a warrant to search the premises and requested entry.
One of the residents came out to the back porch to tell me "the Drug Squad's here with a warrant". I responded " you'd best let them in then, I spose".
At which point the res. unlocked the front door and guided them out to speak with me.

Initially two officers appraoched me and asked me if I was the lease-holder of the premises. I responded in the affirmative. They then informed me that they had a warrant to search the house, any vehicles and persons on the property, then produced the warrant for me to read.
The warrant stated that they were to search (based on information received) for "quantities of a dangerous drug, precursors and/or manufacturing equipment".
This would indicate to me that they were under the impression we were running a speed lab.

Since this has never been, is not and is unlikely to ever be the case, I am keen to question the validity of the search warrant.

So this time around I plan a slightly different approach. That being, to plead not guilty to having commited an offence.
I have returned the infringement notice, having filled out the section requesting that the matter be dealt with by the court.
I hope to argue that the warrant is invalid as it contravenes articles 9 and 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 9 addresses "arbitrary" arrest, detention and exile.
Article 12 addresses "arbitrary" invasion of home.

In raising the warrant in the first place, the Police ordinarily would need to provide the relevant authority (in this case a JP) with some degree of proof to justify their suspicions. I would expect this proof to be the result of a reasonable amount of investigation.
Evidence such as
1) Credible eyewitness account. Or a bust trail that leads to this address.
2) Reports from chemists, or other credible sources, regarding the purchase of psuedoephedrines.
3) Evidence of the purchase of said manufacturing equipment.
4) Tapes of telephone conversations that would indicate illicit activities in progress.
5) Prior convictions of any of the tennants that would indicate that such activities are likely.

As none of the suspected activities were in fact occuring, the Police could not possibly have had any of the above proof to present to a JP to justify a search warrant.

However, in the Northern Territory, apparently, when in relation to drugs, one only requires suspicion. Not reasonable suspicion based on any credible evidence.

I believe that whims, wishes and malicious gossip (and this is all the Police could have had) are arbitrary and therefore contravene the aforementioned articles of the UN UDHR.
If Northern Territory legislation provides for a warrant to be raised based on suspicion alone, then the legislation itself is contrary to the UN UDHR.
As Australia is one of the original signatories of the UN UDHR (1948), we are legally bound to abide by it. Thereby making the legislation invalid. Hence the warrant becomes invalid.
The Police should not have been at the NAP house in the first place to then find my miniscule amount of personal smoke.

I also have a problem with the whole ideology of the fine system. I believe that fines are just State sanctioned bribes. Bribery = corruption.
First we are given the opportunity to pay the official bribe to settle the matter out of court so that no conviction will be recorded.
At the next step we are offered the opportunity to pay the official bribe to stay out of jail.
I will not be a party to, nor a victim of the corruption perpetrated by the State.
I would rather be party to the destruction of a corrupt State.
I will not pay fines. I will continue to place the financial burden of this foolishness back on the State. In the long run, it will cost the NT Government far more than the $210 they have attempted to extort from me.

On the 23rd November I received, in the mail, notification that the infringement notice has been withdrawn and that a summons would be issued in due course.
Then on the 25th November the officer who issued the infringement notice, DSC. T. Abbott, and his off-sider came to the NAP house to ask if I would like to record a statement. I told them that I would prefer to make my statement in court before the Magistrate, and bid them farewell.

So that's where I'm at to date. Now I wait and wait.
I don't really expect to receive a summons to appear for mention before February. At which point I state my intention to plead not guilty. Then a date is set for a concilliatory hearing (your last chance to back down), at which point I state my intention to continue with a not guilty plea. This should be about April or May sometime. Then a date is set for the hearing, possibly by September. At this point I actually get to plead not guilty to having committed an offence, and present my case (that the warrant was invalid, therefore the Police should not have even been there in the first place)

I believe that the Magistrate's Court is a mere formallity. The Magistrate has little choice but to dismiss the case, or find me guilty. As technically I have broken the law as it stands now, a not guilty verdict at this juncture is not really an option.

Should the Magistrate find me guilty, rather than dismiss the case, then next comes the appeal to the Supreme Court. At which point I get to argue that the legislation allowing the warrant to be served in the first place is invalid.

Who knows where that will get me (jail probably). Still,it's not like that interferes with my travel plans. The upside being that it will have cost the State way more than they had hoped to get out of me, and I will have tied up supposedly valuable court time for a couple of years over a trivial matter.

If every person who received an infringement notice for personal possession took the same action, the Government may be left with no option but to legalise marijuana use in order to free up the courts once again.
It is unfortunate though that most people feel they have too much to lose by having a drug conviction on their record. An example of the opression and intimidation tactics used by the Government to continue the legitimised extortion of drug users.

I'll endeavour to keep this blog up to date as the story unfolds.
See you all in court.

Rob Fyffe.

Amphetamine and ADHD

(Unpublished)


Sent to; NT News, Territory Times, SMH, The Age,
The Advertiser, The Australian, The Courier Mail,
The Daily Telegraph, The Herald Sun, The Mercury,
The Sunday Mail, The West Australian and
Substance Abuse committee (NT Legislative assembly)
16/02/2006


Very few 'ordinary Australians' have any really reliable knowledge about the effects of amphetamines (speed/go-ey) on people other than the Government approved propaganda. Most people believe that too much amphetamine makes you go "off your head". Wrong! Your average "speed junkie" needs only a small dose of amphetamine to get speeding. They know there's no point having too much because you just bomb out. The "going off your head" is an adverse reaction (like an allergic reaction) to the substance that a very few users suffer. This condition should be properly diagnosed and treated accordingly. Your average speed user, uses about one half of the amount of amphetamine for a weekend's entertainment that an ADHD child is prescribed by medical/psychiatric experts on a daily basis. This does nothing to address the root cause of ADHD (psychiatric mumbo jumbo for high energy), it just bombs the child out, to make them more manageable, and this is supposed to be acceptable. Now apparently "new research" has determined (at great expense no doubt) that the best way to deal with very energetic children is to provide them with the opportunity to exercise. Well der. Anybody without a medical or psychiatric degree could have told them that, for free.

I call on this Government to end this insane "war on drugs" approach to the issue of drug use in our society and accept that it will always be. It would be far less expensive and ultimately much more beneficial to the Australian people to provide health care to the few people that have a problem with substance abuse. Provide opportunities for employment in a legitimate industry. Rather than relentlessly pursuing people through the police and the court system to overcrowd our jails with non-violent drug offenders. With the ever louder calls to build more prisons (quite a growth industry that. Who profits?). You can't lock up one third of the population for enjoying their time off from providing income for the Government (via our taxes).

Perhaps this Government could become the "Progressive" and "Forward Thinking" Government that Clare Martin claimed it to be in her last election campain.

Drug prohibition is dodgy politics

I realise now that I have always looked at the drug prohibition issue from the wrong angle. As I've always believed that people should have a freedom of choice, when it comes to what subtances one uses to enjoy one's rest and relaxation time, as long as your use does not impinge upon other's enjoyment of life. After all, the vast majority of drug users, like myself, are fully productive, normally functioning members of the community. There are a minority of substance users, who for generally deeper reasons, abuse subtances. This is a health and education issue, that left undealt with becomes a law and order issue.

However successive governments for far too long now have not dealt responsibly with the issue, prefering to keep a blanket ban on all but alcohol and nicotine. Two of the most damaging (physically and mentally) of the variety of drugs available to choose from. Doesn't really make sense from the angle of 'the social responsibilities of government'.

Given that governments generally act in their own best interest (ie. what will get them re-elected ), not the best interests of the general community (although sometimes the two coincide, and we are kept happy). One can only assume that the prohibition of some substances is more profitable to them. Rather than alowing a legitimate industry to develope that could employ hundreds of Australians, and provide another option to the farming communities that are struggling Australia wide. Instead, just a few key people make meggabucks.

If the so-called "hard drugs" were manufactured under strict quality control and sold in known dosage, rather that only being available from dodgy sources, we would likely find a dramatic decrease in associated physical and mental health 'side effects'. Accidental overdose deaths would cease. People who do have problems with their usage could openly seek help. We could have legitimate medical research to determine why a handful of users have bad reactions to some drugs, address the issue, and better educate people. Instead of just pushing the tired old line, " drugs are bad m'k". I know, from personal use, that most are not, when used responsibly and in moderation, (Just like legally available alcohol).

Perhaps goverments are afraid to encourage people to think, and prefers to 'dumb them down' with alcohol, rather than allow access to various other substances which actually allow one to see things from a diferent perspective, and therefore, often solve problems more effectively. Some of the worlds most creative minds have been somewhat drug effected. One really needs to question government's motives on this one. Profit, political gain or the good of the people?
Or maybe we've become so 'beholdin' to the good old US of A that we just do as they say, no questions asked. Never mind the US has it's own rather questionable agenda. No longer free thinking Australians.

End the "war on drugs". It is immoral. It is ignorant.

Our local rag

Well, once again, the N.T.News has shown what an immature little rag it really is. Our local source of information devotes, sometimes as much as, 2/3 of a page to letters to the editor. A great public forum, where, every day people can write in expressing their concerns or simply raising issues that they feel require some public discussion and debate. In some Australian newspapers, this section takes up several pages.

Now the N.T.News has introduced a magazine section, taking up a whole page, entitled "Your Stories". Similar to sections of various glossy magazines, only not at all glossy. Their first day was devoted to 'amusing anecdotes about our cute little ones'. Their next effort, 'my brush with celebrity'. What next. One cringes at the possibilities.

This is supposed to be a NEWS paper.

Still, I strongly encourage anyone visiting the Northern Territory to buy at least one issue of our local rag the N.T. News. I'm sure you will find it quite amusing and quaint reading. Just don't expect to find any real news in it. And, besides, you just might run out of toilet paper on your camping trip.

Lift your game N.T. News. you embarrass us.

Addicted to insanity.

As a person who smokes pot on a regular basis, and has done for around 30 years now. As a person who has spent most of that time working, paying tax, and generally contributing to my community.

I have sat, and smoked, with poeple from all sectors of society, ( not just the junkies the government would have us believe are the only face of drug use). I have shared smoke with judges/magistrares, police officers, members of the legal fraternity, doctors, politicians and even some ordinary honest people. All of these people, like myself, were (and are), ordinary working, tax paying Australians. But our Government would have those who know little or nothing about drugs, other than alcohol, that we are all dangerous and desperate junkies, prone to psychotic outbursts.

What a load of rubbish.

Let the Government publicise the research papers showing the clear links between drug use and mental illness. I think they cannot, as all they have is the anecdotal evidence from the various community organisations who have to deal with the small percentage of drug users with a substance abuse problem.

Substance abuse is a condition arising from deeper issues, that affects a small minority of drug users (and I include alcohol in all references to drugs). All the people I know who have a serious problem with drug abuse have been placed in that situation by the general, and mental, health systems. Having been treated for chronic pain with the highly addictive morphine, instead of non addictive non health threatening pure heroin. Or given overdoses of damaging amphetimines as children to deal with A.D.D./A.D.H.D. (WAY TO GO MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM).

It seems the Gov't would rather demonize a fairly large sector of the community (approx 30%) in those of us who enjoy using a substance other than alcohol for our recreation. Rather than render effective health services to those who have a substance abuse problem.

I simply cannot understand the current Government's stance on drug prohibition. I had hoped that the trend toward liberalism, that began in the seventies, would lead our governments to take a more mature approach to the issues of substance use as a social issue, and substance abuse as a health issue.

But it seems we'll be waiting a while longer yet before we see a Gov't with the intestinal fortitude required to deal responsibly (not hysterically) with the issue.

Upcoming N.T. News section "Your Stories"

Good grief! Is the N.T. News a news paper or a magazine. Now you want to produce a section devoted to amusing anecdotes about our uniquely lovable, annoying or just plain funny children. Next what? "The lovable, annoying and funny things our drunk friends do". If we wanted to read all that crap, we would buy glossy magazines. Having had only half of my letters to the editor published, and I assume I'm not the only one in that possition ( to think otherwise would be paranoid ), I would prefer to see an extension of the L.T.E. section to facilitate wider public disscussion on issues more pertinent to our lovable little one's futures.

Re; S.A. flag "piping shrike"

The Age, 25/1/06

(Unpublished)

Hi, just a brief note regarding your article on the Democrat's call for a new S.A. flag. Throughout my years at school, in S.A., it was impressed upon me that the bird on the flag is a Piping Shrike, not a Magpie. This bird is also known as the Pee Wee in N.S.W., and often called a Murray Maggie in S.A. and Vic. Funnily enough though, the bird that appears on the S.A. flag, (and various other official logos and ensigns), has a beak much more like that of a Magpie than a Piping Shrike. Maybe the flag does need to be changed, if only to avoid the confusion. I would suggest a marijuana leaf, as it is a well recognised fact that some of the world's best comes from good old S.A.

Re headline story, ."NT hero cop..."

N.T. News, 11/01/06.

(Unpublished)

Having been at the recieving end of the unofficial
police code, that it's ok to lie through your teeth,
under oath, in a court of law, (provided you all stick
to the same lie). All I can say to Carmen is, Karma works.