NEWS: Adelaide Now - 1/06/07 'MP's drug ignorance disturbing: Doctor'

[lil angel15]

MP's drug ignorance disturbing: Doctor
TORY SHEPHERD
June 01, 2007 02:15am

LIBERAL MP Christopher Pyne is profoundly ignorant of the facts on illicit drugs, a leading medical expert says.

Dr David Caldicott, a research fellow at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, says Mr Pyne's arguments are full of errors, and he has challenged him to a public debate on the issue.

Mr Pyne is the Federal Government's spokesman on drugs, and is pushing for a "zero tolerance" approach to drugs.

Dr Caldicott has singled out a recent Sunday Mail column by Mr Pyne in which he said ecstasy was "a dangerous psychotropic hallucinogenic stimulant, usually cut with hydrochloric acid", saying it was both "hilarious and disturbing".

"Hilarious, because there is not a shred of evidence to support this, and disturbing because it reveals the true profundity of his ignorance regarding the very illicit substances themselves, never mind the even more difficult subject of drugs policy," he said.

"MDMA (ecstasy) certainly exists as a hydrochloric salt, but then again, so do many antibiotics. He merely had to consult with any Year 12 chemistry student to discover that this is very different to finding 'hydrochloric acid' in ecstasy."

He also said:

THE ZERO tolerance approach to drugs was failing.

PILL testing in the Netherlands had contributed to lower injury and death rates from ecstasy use.

MR PYNE had used statistics selectively to show a reduction in drug use.

Dr Caldicott said Mr Pyne was also mistaken about the pill-testing process. Mr Pyne said pill testing sent the message that a pill could be safe, thereby encouraging people to experiment.

Dr Caldicott said this either showed a lack of understanding of the process or a deliberate misrepresentation.

"In all formally supervised pill-testing programs, it is axiomatic to inform the consumer that no drugs are safe, no matter what the results of testing," he said. "The aim is not to reassure, but to take consumers out of their comfort zone, forcing them to acknowledge the potential health risks associated with their behaviour."

Dr Caldicott said politicians should be prepared to formally debate drugs policy with scientists and doctors.

"If they don't know what they're talking about, they should simply not be allowed to determine policy in such an important arena," he said. "The Australian public are bright enough to understand the truth about drugs and drugs policy, if they are ever told the truth."

Mr Pyne declined to comment yesterday.

Adelaide Now

I would love to see or hear Dr Caldicott destroy Christopher Payne in a debate.

 

[who_can_say]

Pyne is a toolbag. Enough said.

 

[ilikeacid]

Praise to that good doctor I know Pyne would not dare debate Caldicott but we can always dream

 

[noboundaries-au]

Ignorance is not good. The debate on this would be hilarious

 

[RonnySimulacrumII]

Ignorance is not good. The debate on this would be hilarious

and a very good thing

 

[AcidRain]

+1 Dr. Caldicott, I hope he gets to share his knowledge with more people.

 

[Jimity]

Good on you doc. I hope the right wing pussy agrees (though I doubt he will).

 

[static_mind]

I really really hope he takes the offer, hopefully on TV. I have almost no doubt that even broadcasting to an conservitave audence that Calidcott will smoke Pyne.

 

[lil angel15]

Pyne's pain
DR DAVID CALDICOTT
June 01, 2007 07:30pm

THERE appears to be two main types of politician in today's Australia, as far as illicit drugs policy is concerned.

There are those who privately know and admit that American-style prohibition policies are futile and probably dangerous, and yet fear the repercussions of publicly entering into the debate, and there are those who don't allow their ignorance of drugs policy or indeed illicit drugs themselves to temper their public commentary.

Mr Pyne's latest missive in last weeks Sunday Mail seems to suggest that he belongs to the latter group.

His allegation that ecstasy is 'usually' cut with hydrochloric acid is both hilarious, and disturbing.

Hilarious, because there is not a shred of evidence to support this, and disturbing, because it reveals the true profundity of his ignorance regarding the very illicit substances themselves, never mind the even more difficult subject of drugs policy. MDMA certainly exists as a hydrochloride salt, but then again, so do many antibiotics.

He merely had to consult with any year 12 chemistry student to discover that this is very different to finding 'hydrochloric acid' in ecstasy. If drug users are to be persuaded that their behaviour is mistaken and dangerous, it needs to be done by persons who appear to have at least some vague idea about what they're talking about.

And yet Australians find themselves in a position where they are obliged to rely on his myopic insights into the current drugs problem to protect their children. His recounting of a scenario where pill testers tell consumers that a drug is 'safe' can only be interpreted in one of 2 ways.

Either he has trouble intellectually with the process, in which case parents might rightly express concern about his influence on Australian drugs policy, or he does understand the process, but is happy to misrepresent it for his own political aspirations.

In all formally supervised pill-testing programmes, it is axiomatic to inform the consumer that no drugs are safe, no matter what the results of testing. Advocates of pill-testing in Australia seek, among other things, to convert the informal self-administered system currently in play to a formal system by which consumers are forced to interact with trained health professionals.

The aim is not to reassure, but to take consumers out of their comfort zone, forcing them to acknowledge the potential health risks associated with their behaviour.

You might excuse a simple politician from being unfamiliar with the scientific literature, but to be unaware of your own government's recommendations is frankly lazy. His suggestion that the NSW heroin injecting room has been discredited is nonsense.

He admits that he arrives at his conclusion from reading the newspapers. If he, for example, turned to something even slightly more scientific (say, the reports commissioned by his own government), he would quickly see that the programme is far from discredited.

Between 1988 and 2000, as a result of the introduction of needle and syringe programs, 25 000 HIV infections and 21 000 hepatitis C infections were prevented among people who injected drugs. As a consequence, 90 hepatitis-C-related deaths and 4500 HIV-related deaths would have been prevented by 2010.

This translates for the taxpayer- and this year, the voter- into cost savings of up to $783 million for hepatitis C treatment and up to $7025 million for HIV treatment. All this, for an estimated cost of $150 million- peanuts in public health terms.

Put simply for the reader, for every one of your tax dollars put into the program, nearly fifty are saved. Now that was 5 years ago, and perhaps Mr, Pyne hasn't quite had a chance to catch up with his reading.

But this year, his own government's senate inquiry into Amphetamines and other Synthetic Drugs supported the development of Victoria's intention to run a trial of pill testing. Sadly, we've missed the boat in South Australia- despite the recommendations by the experts at the July 2002 SA Drugs Summit to conduct a trial of pill-testing, these have quietly been ignored by state government.

Mr. Pyne attacks 'trendy answers' to the drug problem, presumably because his department and the government he represents are bereft of any new ideas to address a dynamic and ever changing drug market.

His policies clearing failing and the source of increasing scorn and derision by the research community, his solution out of the hole of 'zero tolerance' is to dig faster. Like King Canute, holding out his hand and ordering the advancing tide of designer drugs to merely stop, he and his cronies are destined to fail.

Having returned from an international emergency conference in the Netherlands this month, I had the opportunity to review and discuss the formal drug monitoring system in place there. They are very happy with the system currently in place, and since it has been functioning since 1993, were highly amused (and somewhat flattered) that anyone would consider it 'trendy'.

As Holland has a lower rate of MDMA use, as well as a lower injury rates and a lower deaths rate from that drug than Australia or the USA, one must presume that Mr Pyne's concerns regarding pill testing are at some sort of existential level.

Recently they have expanded their testing program to include substances seized from amnesty bins at nightclubs. In Australia, substances seized on the door by bouncers have a tendency to find themselves back on the market.

Are the opponents of pill testing so convinced of their position that they would prefer to have illicit compounds circulating and available to their voter's children, rather than to have them confiscated and tested?

Do they think that it's unreasonable to be able to test the substances that arrive in emergency departments, in the possession of critically unwell patients, to see if some new, highly toxic substance has been released on the market? Or should parents content themselves with simple post-mortem results?

Mr Pyne's suggestion that his government is winning the 'war on drugs' smacks of George Bush's now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Pyne is very selective in his use of statistics.

Diminution in drug consumption, like the heroin figures he quotes, is more likely to be despite federal drugs policy, and as a consequence of simple market forces and demand, rather than due to any inspired leadership on his part.

Is he aware of a drug called methamphetamine? Anyone for 'ice'? The biggest drug problem facing Australia in a decade, and nothing to say? Hardly winning the war on that front, are we now? The inelegant, unintelligent manner in which the federal government has conducted its bogus war guarantees an even more protracted engagement.

Bullying of researchers, funding research on the basis of ideology and not merit, manipulation of statistics and the conservative press cadre, policy decisions behind closed doors, which are subsequently immune to FOI enquiries, all ensure that it will be 10 years before we can undo the damage from "Tough on Drugs/ War on Drugs" campaigns.

The tragedy is that we could have been so much further ahead in reducing the harm caused by drugs in Australia, were it not for wowsers playing to fringe electoral groups for cheap votes.

It is fine for Mr Pyne, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in 'zero tolerance' on moral grounds- it's his personal right, and there is certainly a moral dimension in the debate on drugs. In medicine, we respect the wishes of patients to decline blood transfusions, even though that decision may result in their death.

It doesn't mean that we would ever consider closing the blood banks, because certain individuals are opposed to transfusion. And yet we are being asked to accept Mr Pyne's version of drugs policy, his support of zero tolerance in the face of everything we know to be true from science and medicine.

The Australian Medical Association- which incidentally, supports a medically supervised, ethically approved trial of pill testing- has said that a zero tolerance drug policy for Australia would have 'catastrophic consequences' for the country.

Mr. Pyne's polemic is yet another example of a political 'free kick', whereby politicians, both state and federal, hide behind press-releases and sound-bites, never having to personally face the scrutiny of science.

If politicians of this ilk want to persuade the public that 'zero tolerance' is the way forward, let them stop shirking behind the skirts of their minders and debate it formally, personally, in a public forum, against critical scientists and doctors.

If they don't know what they're talking about, they should simply not be allowed to determine policy in such an important arena. Let's sell tickets and give the money to charity. The Australian public are bright enough to understand the truth about drugs and drugs policy, if they are ever told the truth.

Adelaide Now

An article by the good doctor himself.

 

[NickyJ]

That is fucking brilliant! :D And about time too, my hatred for Chris Pyne knows no bounds.

 

[lil angel15]

An extremely well written article. Two thumbs up Dr.

I really, really hope that Christopher Pyne responds in some way or even takes up the challenge for a debate. It would be oh so amusing to see him get shot down in flames.

 

[AcidRain]

Excellent article - was that published in any hard copy newspapers?

 

[Jimity]

It is fine for Mr Pyne, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in 'zero tolerance' on moral grounds- it's his personal right, and there is certainly a moral dimension in the debate on drugs. In medicine, we respect the wishes of patients to decline blood transfusions, even though that decision may result in their death.

It doesn't mean that we would ever consider closing the blood banks, because certain individuals are opposed to transfusion. And yet we are being asked to accept Mr Pyne's version of drugs policy, his support of zero tolerance in the face of everything we know to be true from science and medicine.

Quoted for truth. Awesome article.

Slowly but surely, the testing community seems to be getting heard.

 

[hoptis]

This is the original piece from the Sunday Mail by Federal MP Christoper Pyne.

There is no safe way or place to take illicit drugs
ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY IS WORKING, SAYS CHRISTOPHER PYNE
By CHRISTOPHER PYNE

ECSTASY is a dangerous psychotropic hallucinogenenic stimulant, usually cut with hydrochloric acid.

It can lead to overheating and dehydration, unsafe sexual practices, medium and long-term mental health concerns including depression, and potentially death.

Some drug law reform advocates would have you believe that the Government should allow "pill testing'' at rave parties so that drug users can take their pills, comforted by the knowledge that whatever they're taking hasn't been accidentally spiked by rat poison or something even more dangerous.

It is a fanciful dream to believe that any illicit drug is safe. An overwhelming majority of the Australian community would understand that by sending the message that a pill can be "safe'', the pill-testers would be putting young people at rave parties in more danger by encouraging them to experiment.

My description of ecstasy in the opening paragraph is a description of the pill that would pass the pill-testers' examination.

Pill testing at rave parties is just one of a range of "trendy'' answers that are thrown up from time to time in the debate about what to do about drugs.

The NSW Government continues to operate a largely discredited heroin injecting room. If you're to believe what you read in the newspapers, the room has an alarmingly low rate of users entering into rehabilitation or treatment programs. In fact it would seem the room is now a refuge for other drug takers, with 8 per cent of visitors injecting the particularly insidious drug, ice.

The Federal Government has a commonsense approach to dealing with illicit substances. We have a zero tolerance approach towards drug taking, drug dealing and any practice that sends the message that drug taking is somehow acceptable or tolerated.

There is no safe way, no safe level, and no safe place to take illicit drugs.

We also fund rehabilitation and diversion programs designed to help drug addicts to get off the drugs and get on with their lives. To not do so would be negligent. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Since John Howard launched the Tough on Drugs campaign in 1997, the Government has committed more than $1.4 billion to a whole range of measures designed to fight the scourge of drugs in our community.

These measures encompass three main strategies:

A STRONG law enforcement component - to reduce the illegal supply of drugs into our country, to catch and imprison dealers within Australia, and to intercept the drugs before they get onto the street.

POSITIVE public education campaigns - particularly aimed at ensuring that young people are fully informed about the risks and dangers associated with all drug taking.

TREATMENT and rehabilitation for addicts - to ensure those who have been affected by drug use are able to return to the community, lead fulfilling lives and make productive contributions again to society.

The campaign has had strong successes. Drug use is falling; the proportion of people aged 14 and over who had used illicit drugs in the previous 12 months fell from 22 per cent in 1998 to 15.3 per cent in 2004. Deaths from heroin overdose have fallen from 1116 in 1999 to 374 in 2005.

A poll of young people released by the Australian Democrats this week showed that of the 15 to 19-year-olds polled there was a 10 per cent drop since last year in those who had tried cannabis.

The Australian Secondary Schools Survey paints a similar picture with the number of 12 to 17-year-olds using cannabis on a weekly basis dropping from 11 per cent in 1996 to 4 per cent in 2005. The number of 12 to 17-year-olds who have tried cannabis in their lifetime has dropped from 35 per cent in 1996 to 18 per cent in 2005. And if they're not using cannabis at school they're much less likely to graduate to harder drugs.

The Government's drugs campaign has been designed to get families talking about drugs, recognising that parents are in the best position to raise the subject of illicit drugs and educating their children about the dangers.

If offered an illicit substance, young people need to have a strategy of how to say no, and parents can help prepare their kids for that.

Figures from the 2001 National Illicit Drugs Campaign showed 78 per cent of parents began a dialogue with their children about drugs as a result of the campaign. This is paying dividends today.

In this year's Federal Budget we have allocated funds to send all parents in Australia an updated booklet with all the facts they need to help them talk to their children about drugs, including ice.

Kids are getting the message that using drugs isn't cool. I look forward to the trendy public policy advocates learning that sometimes the old ideas are the best.

Christopher Pyne is the Federal MP (Liberal) for Sturt and the Minister for Ageing

Caption: DESPAIR: A young drug addict
Illus: Dinkus: christopher pyne
Photo: silhouette of drug addict sitting on kerb
Library Heading: Narcotic drugs - Australia
Column: extra
Section: OPINION
Type: Article

Edition 1 - State, Sunday Mail (Adelaide)
SUN 20 MAY 2007, Page 081

 

[hoptis]

Also thought I'd share some of my favorite comments from the Advertiser website attached to today's articles.

I think Dr Caldicott is well aware not every user will test their drug of choice, but equally aware that many "users" are not your stereotypical "addict". Many users are responsible members of the community, and would welcome the opportunity to be made aware of the fact that what they are about to take might not be good for them, but at least won't cause them to die that night. Prohibition has never worked, and I'm not advocating a drug-use free-for-all, but surely a qualified medical officer with heaps of experience immersed in the problem should have a louder voice on the issue than a snot-nosed graduate from Toffs-R-Us Grammar School who thinks he knows best.

Posted by: Tom of Adelaide 12:08pm today

If Kevin Rudd's "New Labor" are smart, they will put David Caldicott on a retainer to be the principle advisor to the Shadow (future?) Federal Health Minister on illicit drugs.

Posted by: Forty Something of Suburbia 10:09am today

Mr Caldicott is right but does anyone seriously swallow Pyne's "articles" or even listen to him? The guy doesn't know much about drugs that much we all know and his attempts at looking after the elderly have been almost as ham fisted. Pyne's nothing but a "career politician" spreading Liberal party propaganda, a party that has never even thought much of him. I wouldn't even ask him for his opinion on the weather.

Posted by: John Winston of Adelaide 12:47am today

 

[ilikeacid]

Dr. Caldicott
Mr. Pyne attacks 'trendy answers' to the drug problem, presumably because his department and the government he represents are bereft of any new ideas to address a dynamic and ever changing drug market.

His policies clearing failing and the source of increasing scorn and derision by the research community, his solution out of the hole of 'zero tolerance' is to dig faster. Like King Canute, holding out his hand and ordering the advancing tide of designer drugs to merely stop, he and his cronies are destined to fail.

Take that Pyne!! :D What a fucking legend the goood doctor is! ^That would have to be the most eloquently put interpretation of Liberal/Republican "War on Drugs" doctrine I have ever seen! :D

Pyne's article is hilarious when compared to Sir Caldicotts! It really seems as if Pyne hasn't even looked seriously at any science behind drugs at all. I hope Pyne ends up where he belongs after the next election: Out of a job!

 

[tapout]

May i suggest that people take up the initiative and post this article or links to it on as many forum boards as possible, become members of political forums and really get this message out, as previously mentioned this is easily the most eloquently written article on the topic and in an election year that will no doubt feature a scare campaign against drugs and harm minimisation the more informed people are about the topic the better.

 

[static_mind]

ahhh Caldicott is a fucking ledgend. But when it comes to us and him, is it better to distance our selves from him a little. I mean, hes the greatest thing for harm reduction but when it comes to talking to sheep, having a heap of users behind him might look bad.

Don't get me wrong, I totally support him %100 and am in no way talking critical of him at all. All im saying is that we, the users are frowned upon in this world. Do we lower the Drs creditbility when we stand by him or should we stand by his side on this.

-im a bit burned atm so I might not be making sense.

 

[ilikeacid]

^ I see what your pointing at but the idea of distancing ourselves, as the drug using community, away from Dr Caldicotts position is almost impossible - and also probably harmful to the harm minimisation cause in the long term.

Face it we are the drug taking community and we do see a side that most dont. Many of us are quite normal people, working normal jobs and leading normal lives - this is a side of the drug issue that the majority of the country need to see for them to understand that passing draconian drug laws does in-fact destroy as many lives as drugs themselves!

The more people (drug takers or otherwise) that actively support the rational, compassionate ideas of Dr. Caldicott, the better off we'll all be

 

[Modulus]

Pyne's Pain


DR DAVID CALDICOTT

June 01, 2007 07:30pm

THERE appears to be two main types of politician in today's Australia, as far as illicit drugs policy is concerned.

There are those who privately know and admit that American-style prohibition policies are futile and probably dangerous, and yet fear the repercussions of publicly entering into the debate, and there are those who don't allow their ignorance of drugs policy or indeed illicit drugs themselves to temper their public commentary.

Mr Pyne's latest missive in last weeks Sunday Mail seems to suggest that he belongs to the latter group.

His allegation that ecstasy is 'usually' cut with hydrochloric acid is both hilarious, and disturbing.

Hilarious, because there is not a shred of evidence to support this, and disturbing, because it reveals the true profundity of his ignorance regarding the very illicit substances themselves, never mind the even more difficult subject of drugs policy. MDMA certainly exists as a hydrochloride salt, but then again, so do many antibiotics.

He merely had to consult with any year 12 chemistry student to discover that this is very different to finding 'hydrochloric acid' in ecstasy. If drug users are to be persuaded that their behaviour is mistaken and dangerous, it needs to be done by persons who appear to have at least some vague idea about what they're talking about.

And yet Australians find themselves in a position where they are obliged to rely on his myopic insights into the current drugs problem to protect their children. His recounting of a scenario where pill testers tell consumers that a drug is 'safe' can only be interpreted in one of 2 ways.

Either he has trouble intellectually with the process, in which case parents might rightly express concern about his influence on Australian drugs policy, or he does understand the process, but is happy to misrepresent it for his own political aspirations.

In all formally supervised pill-testing programmes, it is axiomatic to inform the consumer that no drugs are safe, no matter what the results of testing. Advocates of pill-testing in Australia seek, among other things, to convert the informal self-administered system currently in play to a formal system by which consumers are forced to interact with trained health professionals.

The aim is not to reassure, but to take consumers out of their comfort zone, forcing them to acknowledge the potential health risks associated with their behaviour.

You might excuse a simple politician from being unfamiliar with the scientific literature, but to be unaware of your own government's recommendations is frankly lazy. His suggestion that the NSW heroin injecting room has been discredited is nonsense.

He admits that he arrives at his conclusion from reading the newspapers. If he, for example, turned to something even slightly more scientific (say, the reports commissioned by his own government), he would quickly see that the programme is far from discredited.

Between 1988 and 2000, as a result of the introduction of needle and syringe programs, 25 000 HIV infections and 21 000 hepatitis C infections were prevented among people who injected drugs. As a consequence, 90 hepatitis-C-related deaths and 4500 HIV-related deaths would have been prevented by 2010.

This translates for the taxpayer- and this year, the voter- into cost savings of up to $783 million for hepatitis C treatment and up to $7025 million for HIV treatment. All this, for an estimated cost of $150 million- peanuts in public health terms.

Put simply for the reader, for every one of your tax dollars put into the program, nearly fifty are saved. Now that was 5 years ago, and perhaps Mr, Pyne hasn't quite had a chance to catch up with his reading.

But this year, his own government's senate inquiry into Amphetamines and other Synthetic Drugs supported the development of Victoria's intention to run a trial of pill testing. Sadly, we've missed the boat in South Australia- despite the recommendations by the experts at the July 2002 SA Drugs Summit to conduct a trial of pill-testing, these have quietly been ignored by state government.

Mr. Pyne attacks 'trendy answers' to the drug problem, presumably because his department and the government he represents are bereft of any new ideas to address a dynamic and ever changing drug market.

His policies clearing failing and the source of increasing scorn and derision by the research community, his solution out of the hole of 'zero tolerance' is to dig faster. Like King Canute, holding out his hand and ordering the advancing tide of designer drugs to merely stop, he and his cronies are destined to fail.

Having returned from an international emergency conference in the Netherlands this month, I had the opportunity to review and discuss the formal drug monitoring system in place there. They are very happy with the system currently in place, and since it has been functioning since 1993, were highly amused (and somewhat flattered) that anyone would consider it 'trendy'.

As Holland has a lower rate of MDMA use, as well as a lower injury rates and a lower deaths rate from that drug than Australia or the USA, one must presume that Mr Pyne's concerns regarding pill testing are at some sort of existential level.

Recently they have expanded their testing program to include substances seized from amnesty bins at nightclubs. In Australia, substances seized on the door by bouncers have a tendency to find themselves back on the market.

Are the opponents of pill testing so convinced of their position that they would prefer to have illicit compounds circulating and available to their voter's children, rather than to have them confiscated and tested?

Do they think that it's unreasonable to be able to test the substances that arrive in emergency departments, in the possession of critically unwell patients, to see if some new, highly toxic substance has been released on the market? Or should parents content themselves with simple post-mortem results?

Mr Pyne's suggestion that his government is winning the 'war on drugs' smacks of George Bush's now-infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Pyne is very selective in his use of statistics.

Diminution in drug consumption, like the heroin figures he quotes, is more likely to be despite federal drugs policy, and as a consequence of simple market forces and demand, rather than due to any inspired leadership on his part.

Is he aware of a drug called methamphetamine? Anyone for 'ice'? The biggest drug problem facing Australia in a decade, and nothing to say? Hardly winning the war on that front, are we now? The inelegant, unintelligent manner in which the federal government has conducted its bogus war guarantees an even more protracted engagement.

Bullying of researchers, funding research on the basis of ideology and not merit, manipulation of statistics and the conservative press cadre, policy decisions behind closed doors, which are subsequently immune to FOI enquiries, all ensure that it will be 10 years before we can undo the damage from "Tough on Drugs/ War on Drugs" campaigns.

The tragedy is that we could have been so much further ahead in reducing the harm caused by drugs in Australia, were it not for wowsers playing to fringe electoral groups for cheap votes.

It is fine for Mr Pyne, or anyone else for that matter, to believe in 'zero tolerance' on moral grounds- it's his personal right, and there is certainly a moral dimension in the debate on drugs. In medicine, we respect the wishes of patients to decline blood transfusions, even though that decision may result in their death.

It doesn't mean that we would ever consider closing the blood banks, because certain individuals are opposed to transfusion. And yet we are being asked to accept Mr Pyne's version of drugs policy, his support of zero tolerance in the face of everything we know to be true from science and medicine.

The Australian Medical Association- which incidentally, supports a medically supervised, ethically approved trial of pill testing- has said that a zero tolerance drug policy for Australia would have 'catastrophic consequences' for the country.

Mr. Pyne's polemic is yet another example of a political 'free kick', whereby politicians, both state and federal, hide behind press-releases and sound-bites, never having to personally face the scrutiny of science.

If politicians of this ilk want to persuade the public that 'zero tolerance' is the way forward, let them stop shirking behind the skirts of their minders and debate it formally, personally, in a public forum, against critical scientists and doctors.

If they don't know what they're talking about, they should simply not be allowed to determine policy in such an important arena. Let's sell tickets and give the money to charity. The Australian public are bright enough to understand the truth about drugs and drugs policy, if they are ever told the truth.

An article by the good doctor himself.

This deserved a bump, one of the best articles i've read.

If only someone like Caldicott was in politics, we'd have some glimmer of hope.