• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

NEWS - MP says ecstacy isn't dangerous (The Advertiser, 13/05/06)

peaked

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
711
The Advertiser
Edition 1 - StateSAT 13 MAY 2006, Page 001
MP says ecstasy isn't dangerous
By CRAIG BILDSTIEN, KARA PHILLIPS

STATE MP Sandra Kanck says ecstasy - which has been linked to more than 110 deaths in three years - "is not a dangerous drug''.

The Democrats leader told Parliament that after 20 years, there was still no "evidence that it is a dangerous substance''.

She suggested the drug could have been given to victims of last year's fatal Eyre Peninsula bushfires to help them cope with their trauma.

Bushfire recovery effort chairman Vince Monterola said he was astounded by the comment, labelling it "an absurd proposition''.

The U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse warns that ecstasy, also known as MDMA, "is not safe for human consumption''.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty last month warned that a mistaken belief by young Australians that ecstasy was relatively safe was "by far the biggest drug problem'' facing Australia.

The Federal Government spent $23 million last year warning of the dangers following revelations by the Australian Crime Commission that per capita, Australians are the biggest users in the world.

Substance Abuse Minister Gail Gago said 112 ecstasy-related deaths nationally between 2001 and 2004 was "ample evidence'' the drug was harmful.

"Health experts, psychiatric experts and the community do not want a pro-drug policy,'' she said.

Ms Kanck - the last remaining Democrat in the the SA Parliament - announced on Wednesday that she intended to retire from politics at the 2010 election and was therefore "not scared of a public backlash'' by taking a stand against mainstream opinion.

However, the party's state president, Richard Pascoe, yesterday called on her to stand aside within 12 months, saying he supported defeated MP Kate Reynolds taking her spot in the Legislative Council.

In a wide-ranging speech on drugs, Ms Kanck said she was "quite disturbed'' by what she called "an emerging trend of conservatism in politics''.

She claimed "progressive politics'' was the loser from the March poll, which saw the election of anti-drugs campaigner Ann Bressington, Family First's Dennis Hood and Green Mark Parnell.

"I remind members who might think that all drugs are evil that Jesus partook of wine. He did not have any silly laws that said `this drug is legal, and this one isn't legal','' she said.

"We have been told that ecstasy is a dangerous substance. We do not have the evidence.

The original 1985 listing of ecstasy, or MDMA, is still being contested. So more than 20 years later, the matter has not yet been resolved.

"In fact, I was saying to people last year after the bushfires on Eyre Peninsula, with all the trauma that was associated with it, that one of the best things you could probably have done for the people on EP who had gone through that trauma was to give them MDMA.

"However, one dare not advocate that, because we are all being tough on drugs, aren't we?''

"Good God,'' is how Eyre Peninsula farmer and SA Farmers Federation executive member Paul Kaden reacted to Ms Kanck's suggestions about dispensing the drug to traumatised bushfire victims.

"That's one of the strangest comments I've ever heard and totally irresponsible,'' he said.

His comments were echoed by new Family First MP Mr Hood, who described the statement as "beyond belief''.

Mr Hood said that Ms Kanck had clearly "lost touch''. "It is very disappointing.''

[EDIT: The Advertiser Added link. hoptis]

And a followup article ....

Party fury puts Kanck on brink
Nigel Hunt
14may06

CONTROVERSIAL Democrats MP Sandra Kanck could be sacked by her party following inflammatory comments endorsing the use of the deadly designer drug ecstasy.

Her political future will be discussed at a meeting of party executives as early as tomorrow night, according to state president Richard Pascoe.

He said yesterday "everything is up for negotiation" following a groundswell of outrage from party members.

At the meeting, a decision will be made whether to call an extraordinary meeting of members.

At that meeting, a ballot could be held to oust her as the Democrats' sole MP in state Parliament.






This would throw the position open for another member – likely to be former MLC Kate Reynolds – to take Ms Kanck's place in the Upper House.

Mr Pascoe said he planned to meet Ms Kanck, who was in Melbourne yesterday, as soon as possible to discuss her comments and her future.

"Let me emphasise it is a Sandra Kanck statement, not a Democrats statement," he said.

On Wednesday, Ms Kanck announced plans to retire at the 2010 election and then, later that night in parliament, said there was no evidence that ecstasy was a dangerous drug.

She said its original listing as a "damaging and addictive" drug in the US in 1985 was still being contested.

Trials to determine if MDMA – ecstasy – could be used to treat sufferers of post-traumatic stress syndrome were underway in the US.

"We have been told that ecstasy is a dangerous substance. We do not have the evidence; the Australian Government has followed down the path of doing this without the evidence," she told the House.

"So, more than 20 years later, the matter has not been resolved. Yet we are being asked to believe that this is a dangerous substance. We do not have evidence that it is a dangerous substance.

"In fact, I was saying to people last year, after the bushfires on Eyre Peninsula, with all the trauma that was associated with it, that one of the best things you could probably have done for the people on Eyre Peninsula who had gone through that trauma was to give them MDMA.

"However, one dare not advocate that because we are all being tough on drugs, aren't we?"

Ms Kanck's comments on ecstasy, which has been linked to 112 deaths in Australia between 2001 and 2004, have also been attacked by victims' families, anti-drug campaigners and her fellow politicians.

When asked if Ms Kanck had compromised the standing of the Democrats, Mr Pascoe replied' "my personal view is that yes, she has".

"I was shocked at it when I read it," he said.

"I feel for the victims of the Eyre Peninsula bushfires and overdose victims' families. It is a very disappointing thing to read ... "

Party insiders said former Democrat MLC Kate Reynolds, who was defeated in the March election, was "the obvious choice" to replace Ms Kanck if she was ousted by the membership. Ms Reynolds had gained a high-profile and considerable respect within the party after her appointment to serve out the remainder of the term of former Democrat leader Mike Elliott following his resignation.

Ms Reynolds yesterday declined to comment directly on Ms Kanck's comments.

However, she said she was prepared to consider filling any vacancy that may become available.

"If there is a casual vacancy, depending on when that occurs, I am prepared to put myself forward to the membership for preselection," she said.

Ms Kanck was also cut adrift by the federal party yesterday, with leader Lyn Allison distancing the party from Ms Kanck's comments.

"The federal party certainly doesn't endorse the use of ecstasy in the alleviation of pain," she said.

"We don't endorse the use of ecstasy full stop."

Ms Kanck could not be contacted for comment yesterday.

source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
um...fuck that is absolutely brilliant. Somebody has actually come out and bluntly said whats on a lot of users minds.

Unfortunately, no evidence that ecstasy is harmful is a ridiculous overstatement and suggesting the bushfire victims take it, whikle probably quite true, in political terms is shooting oneself in the head.

Bravo nonetheless!
 
Politically this was a ridiculously stupid move and as Cyberdyne has said she did overstate the case. That being said, I have to give the woman props. Ironic that she has the biggest balls in parliment on this issue. Haven't heard of her though, seeing as this was posted in the 'tiser I'm guessing this is in SA?
 
Yes, it was on the front page of Adelaide's Saturday Advertiser.

I agree, her comment was political career suicide...however it made me laugh.
 
We need to have more people like her in politics. someone who will actually say whats on their mind and not just go along with all the bullshit that everyone in government says. Good on her but. hope she doesnt get kicked out but she probaly will. Bl for her
 
Amazing comments... even if she is a state MP for a party that probably won't exist in ten years... maybe she should join the Greens and work to influence their drug policy.
 
and some of you still believe in decriminalization and acceptance of drug users in society within our lifetimes, when politicians who speak against the zero tolernance line are still vilified like this?
 
First of all, I would just like to say that ecstasy (mdma) is anything but safe. I have seen the drug fuck up many people's lives through depression, short term memory problems, suicidal thoughts, emotional breakdown, psychological addiction, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera...

Having said that, it would be unwise to believe that alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, processed foods, a diet high in salt, sex, driving cars, motorcycles (very fucking dangerous), crossing the street, trusting the government are not dangerous.

The air in which we breathe can be proven to be detrimental to one's life.

No drug usage is safe. There is no such thing as safe anything and I think the term "safe" is too loosely used in everyday life.

...just my thoughts.
 
safe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sf)
adj. saf·er, saf·est
Secure from danger, harm, or evil.
 
^Uhm... I can't see the difference between not dangerous and safe. I suppose maybe the dictionary could be wrong on this one. And... you're right. I apologise.
 
Yeah, good on her.. might have been a bit smarter not to overstate the case quite so much, but she is probably being misquoted anyway. The Murdoch press are utter scum on these kind of issues and will twist the facts shamelessly to portray all illegal drug use as incredibly dangerous and evil.

For example, note the references in the article to 110 (or whatever it is) deaths "related" to ecstacy. They don't say these deaths were caused by ecstacy, because most of them probably werent. They are deaths which had some connection to ecstacy, and include passengers who have died in car crashes who were high at the time, people who drowned after stupidly going swimming while drunk and high etc etc. But the writer doesnt want people to think about this, they just want people to think "110 deaths, wow that is dangerous".

Of course, there is no mention of how many deaths, sexual assaults etc are related to alcohol, let alone tobacco, which kills around 19,000 Australians every year. I can't remember to alcohol figure, but it is thousands too. Every year.

Still, I guess I don't need to preach to you guys!
 
76fish said:
Of course, there is no mention of how many deaths, sexual assaults etc are related to alcohol, let alone tobacco, which kills around 19,000 Australians every year. I can't remember to alcohol figure, but it is thousands too. Every year.

Right on...this statement is so true!!

Which brings me to my next point. I am an ex smoker and I really don't have a problem with smokers...but I would like to see the day that the government puts graphic pictures of a man beating up his wife on a bottle of bourbon, or someone lying in a pool of their own vomit after a hard night out on the west coast coolers....just like the gruesome pictures they are sticking on cigarette packets.

Sorry, off topic I know...but this has really been bugging me lately.
 
Sandra deserves a pat on the back for having the courage to take a stand against the mainstream opinion on illicit drugs. I just hope she doesnt get shot down like the greens party did when they made proposals out of line with the "tough on drugs" attitude most politicians seem to take.

To me, the fact that only 110 people have died in the past 3 years is more than enough evidence that, atleast in terms of immediate danger, there is a reasonable degree of safety in the use of mdma. Considering australia is now the largest user of ecstacy per capita, its not like mdma is something only being used by a small underground group of people. It's become very much mainstream, with 1 in 5 young people (cant quite remember the correct age range) having used the drug before. Compare that 110 deaths from mdma over 3 years to deaths by tobacco, and you'll see what the real killer is. In three days more people will die from tobacco than in 3 years of ecstacy use! (with tobacco claiming approximately 52 people each day, assuming 19,000 die each year)

Sure, more people smoke tobacco than use mdma, but I dont think this would hugely influence the harm caused. Lets say 10 million people smoke tobacco in Australia, compared to say, 1 million using mdma (1.2 million according to this article). Fifty two people die each day from tobacco, compared to approx 0.1 people dying each day from mdma (since its 110 people over 3 years). So, for as many people to die from mdma as are killed by tobacco, then the amount of people using mdma would have to be a staggering 516 times bigger, or around 516 million people. This isn't even taking into consideration that, of the 110 deaths from ecstacy, atleast half of them would probably also be in combination with other drugs.

I dont mean to say mdma is an entirely safe drug, because there is absolutely no drug that doesnt have some possible danger associated with it. I just think that there are worse things you could do to your body, that are entirely legal.
 
Last edited:
About 3,500 die from alcohol every year... not including; drink driving, alcohol fueled violence, stupidity etc...

SpecTBK=D
 
her arguments suggest to me:

She is new to using E; i judge this from her STUPID comments about giving it to trauma sufferers.

If she had any clue, she'd realise that E is infact dangerous on some level, and drugging out people with problems wont fucking hielp them - especially with e. HELLO YOU COME DOWN - THE SITUATION ONLY GETS WORSE.

I like that she's trying - but it's pushing a horse uphill man - there is enough conclusive evidence to show that MDMA can kill people - if not by overdose so commonly, but other adverse reactions. I seriously believe some people need to do their homework before coming out to Parliament with such trivial arguments - even though there is no evidence to suggest E is dangerous - there is also none to suggest it's safe.

IMO The users themselves are evidence enough its clearly not good for you.

I whole heartedly support decriminalisation of MDMA and related chems - but not legalisation in whole - or the idea of giving it to people suffering from trauma, as I personally believe it's just fuel for disaster.

My 2 cents :)
 
Top