Monday, March 16, 2009

Values, Continued

The Facts V The Propaganda

The views expressed by the various pro drug lobbies are a distortion of the truth.

Notwithstanding research carried out by the National Treatment Agency (NTA) which clearly established that the majority of those who have developed dependence, wish to become drug free; here in the UK, the focus for the past 10 years has been on ‘harm reduction’, rather than seeking to engage users into abstinence focused recovery. The outcome of this disastrous and misguided policy has been an escalation in drug related deaths which are at their highest for 5 years, 325 of which are attributed to methadone, the flagship of the harm reductionists, together with a devastating increase in the spread of blood born disease among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) The statistics provided by the Health Protection Agency for England and Wales are as follows:

• The level of HIV infection among Injecting Drug Users (IDUs) in England and Wales is higher now than at the start of the decade.

• In London where the prevalence of HIV in IDUs is higher than elsewhere in England and Wales, 1 in 20 IDUs is infected.

• In the remainder of England and Wales HIV among IDUs has increased from approximately 1 in 400 in 2002 to around 1 in 150 in 2006.

• The prevalence of Hepatitis C among IDUs has increased from 33 percent in 2000 to 42 per cent in 2006.

• Approximately 1 in 5 IDUs has Hepatitis B infection, which extrapolates as an increase approaching 200 per cent since 1997.

The escalating increase in blood born disease has occurred despite the plethora of needle exchange facilities throughout England and Wales, and the growth of supervised drug consumption rooms

It is self evident from the foregoing that here in the UK at least, it is not the lack of harm reduction measures which is contributing to avoidable deaths and the epidemic of blood born disease being wreaked on our society, but the use of toxic psycho active substances.

It is not so called prohibition which has failed, but the encouragement by way of the tacit permission, and in many instances, the not so tacit encouraging of continued use, inherent in the harm reduction ideology, which has failed users and society so abysmally.

The supporters of Harm Reduction, under their various guises have never allowed the truth to interfere with their propaganda, or indeed their more covert agenda, to legalise drug use; the main beneficiaries of which would be the pharmaceutical industry. Such a move would be to inflict further incalculable harm on society, since it would result in a growth of use and addiction, similar, if not more widespread, to that seen in the late 1800’s when most of the drugs which are controlled today, were in fact legal.

The growth of drug use during that period was the direct result of concerted efforts by leading members of the medical profession in promoting drug use, many of whom were influenced by Sigmund Freud, who was so unethical in his dealings that he accepted separate commissions from two competeing, large pharmaceutical companies, both of whom are still in business today, to write papers extolling the benefits of that destructive substance, cocaine, not only as the ‘elixir of life’, but also as a cure for alcohol and morphine addiction. The rest as they say is history

One has to ask is it a coincidence that many of the bodies, who are pressing for an end to what they term as prohibition, receive ‘research grants’ from the pharmaceutical industry?

Source: Daily Dose; posted by Peter O'Loughlin on 13 Mar 2009 at 6:23 am

1 comment:

NRF said...

Conversations about this subject are difficult partly because the most active participants are willing to talk but not listen. Here, indeed, the very first sentence claims that all views expressed by people holding different opinions are "distortions of the truth." The writer claims to have facts while other have only propaganda.

Read columns of retired Judge Wally Craig and notice that he can't finish a paragraph without a gratuitous insult to someone who happens not to agree with him. Of course, pProponents of drug legalization frequently employ the same tactics.

David, you have much to say about this subject because your past endeavors give you particular qualifications. But a good discussion needs to welcome and examine fairly all points of view. However, I believe that it is preposterous to suppose that, after 100 years, prohibitionist policies are working just fine.

For example, I think that Portugal's 8-year experience in decriminalization (not legalization) merits special attention. From all that I know, answers are not easily arrived at and statistics require fair minded interpretation because the problems have almost infinite factors. However, it does seem sensible to emphasize medical treatment of addiction.

First off though, we should at least try to establish a respectful and factual dialogue.

Keep an eye out in the next few weeks for Glenn Greenwald's report for the Cato Institute about Portugal and drug laws.