VelocideX
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 26, 2003
- Messages
- 4,745
It is my intention to send the following letter to the NSW Health Minister... any comments or suggestions before I send it? Thoughts?
There are quite a number of references throughout, not shown here.
--
Mr Morris Iemma
Minister for Health
NSW Government
In discussions amongst my peer group in the context of drug reform, a number of questions have arisen which I believe have not been satisfactorily answered by previous, not the current governments. These discussions have originated both in social conversation and in the context of university curricula.
I thus enquire as to the current government’s stance on the following questions:
1) Is the current government in principle opposed to the legalisation and regulation of any recreational drugs?
By this, I refer to future, as-of-yet undeveloped recreational drugs. Should a drug with a sufficient safety and satisfactory toxicological profile emerge, would this government be prepared to legalise and regulate it? If so, on what principles would this decision be made? By reference to existing legal recreational drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, by consultation with expert groups, by some arbitrary standard, by community opinion, or by some other method?
If the government is opposed to such a move, I ask on what basis this decision has been made? Does the government oppose any use of a recreational drug in principle? Are implied socio-economic losses the driving concern?
Many drugs that currently exist are poorly researched. Even relatively “well-known” drugs such as “ecstasy” (MDMA) have, at present, insufficient research bodies for general satisfaction.
2) Should sufficient evidence emerge in favour of the general safety of a presently-known drug, would the government consider legalising them?
I refer in particular to tryptamine and phen(yl)ethylamine derived compounds – many of the so-called “research” chemicals – such as 5-MeO-DIPT (“foxy”) and the 2C- class of drugs. Other drugs implicated include AMT and BZP. Many of these compounds have been scheduled despite any evidence one way or the other as to their safety and long-term health effects.
3) Is it the principle of the government to criminalise the possession of any new or emerging drug until more information about this drug can be ascertained?
This is certainly a valid approach, and one that could quite rightly be taken on the premise of protecting people from as-of-yet unknown dangers from drugs. The pattern certainly exists, but I would like to clarify whether this is in fact the stance of the present government.
In some form or other, the current policy in NSW relies on harm minimisation to some extent. Much writing exists on the matter of harm-minimisation. One extremely influential article suggests that a balance must be achieved between complete legalisation and absolute prohibition.
I applaud the NSW government’s stance in enabling the operation of the heroin injection room in King’s Cross, in that it likely reduces viral contamination through needles, and minimises the potential for harm that could stem from overdose.
Whether drugs are what they purport to be and whether they have been adulterated is an extremely pressing question. “Ecstasy” pills have been known to contain paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA) (colloquially known as “death”), an extremely dangerous drug. Adelaide, regrettably, has the highest per-capita death rate in the world from PMA, and deaths there have been quite frequent . Proper testing facilities would likely prevent many of these deaths.
4) Is the NSW Government prepared to extend the potential for harm minimisation to areas other than heroin use, especially the so-called “party drugs” by providing for a facility to determine whether the drugs bought are in fact what they purport to be?
This is a topical area, as demonstrated by recent media coverage . In the alternative, would the NSW government legalise the existence of such a facility, thereby enabling private testing facilities to exist?
Much has been written on the psychotherapeutic potential of psychoactive drugs. Most recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved a study to see if trauma victims can be treated by a combination of psychotherapy and the use of “ecstasy” (MDMA) .
Much evidence exists from before 1985, when MDMA was made illegal in the USA, that MDMA proves as an extremely valuable adjunct to psychotherapy . One researcher has been quoted as saying that "One therapist has estimated that in five hours of one [MDMA] session clients could activate and process psychic material that would normally require five months of weekly session."
5) Should initial and subsequent trials prove fruitful in using MDMA as a psychotherapeutic drug, would the government consider legalising it for that purpose?
If not, on what grounds? Does the government believe that there is a superior option for treatment of trauma victims, especially in treatment-resistant subgroups? If so, what measures is the government taking to ensure adequate support and care is being given to people suffering from treatment-resistant psychiatric illnesses? Are any other lines of investigation being pursued as how to best serve this particular group of people?
Also: Should the USA legalise MDMA for the aforementioned purpose, would the NSW government follow suit?
Much research has been propounded by agents of the US government as to the potential ills of MDMA. Several retractions by their prime researcher , George Ricuarte, have severely impacted on the credibility of the research from his team and the associated John Hopkins University research.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) once prominently declared that ecstasy users were suffering brain damage; they now merely say that “Research in animals indicates that MDMA is neurotoxic; whether or not this is also true in humans is currently an area of intense investigation."
Their website also previously featured an extremely well-known graphic, entitled “plain brain / brain after ecstasy” which has also been removed due to published criticisms about the validity of the neuroimaging studies from which the graphic was derived.
Ricuarte’s work has been contradicted by multiple international teams that conducted larger and better-controlled studies than Ricuarte’s, including ones from Germany , the UK and the Netherlands .
These studies involve users with lifetime averages of upwards of 500 pills (indeed one volunteer had taken nearly 2000 pills) of ecstasy.
It is worth noting that, at the time of scheduling in 1985, a United States Federal Judge recommended that MDMA be made available for strictly-controlled medical use on the basis that it did have a legitimate medical use
Given that the USA’s illegalisation of MDMA was based on Ricuarte’s increasingly discredited research, the grounds on which it was scheduled are becoming increasingly tenuous.
6) Is the NSW government aware of the view that Ricuarte’s work is becoming increasingly uncredible? If so, what is the government’s response to this knowledge? Does the government still place confidence in the research body backing MDMA's outright illegality?
7) Is the NSW government therefore prepared to review the status of MDMA and the research surrounding it, and subsequently make the results of this review available publically?
On a conclusive note, to what degree does the health ministry believe that drug use is best treated as a health and social problem rather than a criminal problem?
Does the government believe that criminal legislation is the superlative and effective method of restricting and preventing drug use when over a third of the Australian population has tried cannabis/marijuana, and over one third of the population aged 20-29 uses illicit drugs in any given year ? When over 50% of 17 year old secondary school students have tried cannabis? On the standards of myself and many of my colleagues, this can hardly be seen as a success (in any sense of the word) in preventing drug use.
--
thoughts?
There are quite a number of references throughout, not shown here.
--
Mr Morris Iemma
Minister for Health
NSW Government
In discussions amongst my peer group in the context of drug reform, a number of questions have arisen which I believe have not been satisfactorily answered by previous, not the current governments. These discussions have originated both in social conversation and in the context of university curricula.
I thus enquire as to the current government’s stance on the following questions:
1) Is the current government in principle opposed to the legalisation and regulation of any recreational drugs?
By this, I refer to future, as-of-yet undeveloped recreational drugs. Should a drug with a sufficient safety and satisfactory toxicological profile emerge, would this government be prepared to legalise and regulate it? If so, on what principles would this decision be made? By reference to existing legal recreational drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, by consultation with expert groups, by some arbitrary standard, by community opinion, or by some other method?
If the government is opposed to such a move, I ask on what basis this decision has been made? Does the government oppose any use of a recreational drug in principle? Are implied socio-economic losses the driving concern?
Many drugs that currently exist are poorly researched. Even relatively “well-known” drugs such as “ecstasy” (MDMA) have, at present, insufficient research bodies for general satisfaction.
2) Should sufficient evidence emerge in favour of the general safety of a presently-known drug, would the government consider legalising them?
I refer in particular to tryptamine and phen(yl)ethylamine derived compounds – many of the so-called “research” chemicals – such as 5-MeO-DIPT (“foxy”) and the 2C- class of drugs. Other drugs implicated include AMT and BZP. Many of these compounds have been scheduled despite any evidence one way or the other as to their safety and long-term health effects.
3) Is it the principle of the government to criminalise the possession of any new or emerging drug until more information about this drug can be ascertained?
This is certainly a valid approach, and one that could quite rightly be taken on the premise of protecting people from as-of-yet unknown dangers from drugs. The pattern certainly exists, but I would like to clarify whether this is in fact the stance of the present government.
In some form or other, the current policy in NSW relies on harm minimisation to some extent. Much writing exists on the matter of harm-minimisation. One extremely influential article suggests that a balance must be achieved between complete legalisation and absolute prohibition.
I applaud the NSW government’s stance in enabling the operation of the heroin injection room in King’s Cross, in that it likely reduces viral contamination through needles, and minimises the potential for harm that could stem from overdose.
Whether drugs are what they purport to be and whether they have been adulterated is an extremely pressing question. “Ecstasy” pills have been known to contain paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA) (colloquially known as “death”), an extremely dangerous drug. Adelaide, regrettably, has the highest per-capita death rate in the world from PMA, and deaths there have been quite frequent . Proper testing facilities would likely prevent many of these deaths.
4) Is the NSW Government prepared to extend the potential for harm minimisation to areas other than heroin use, especially the so-called “party drugs” by providing for a facility to determine whether the drugs bought are in fact what they purport to be?
This is a topical area, as demonstrated by recent media coverage . In the alternative, would the NSW government legalise the existence of such a facility, thereby enabling private testing facilities to exist?
Much has been written on the psychotherapeutic potential of psychoactive drugs. Most recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved a study to see if trauma victims can be treated by a combination of psychotherapy and the use of “ecstasy” (MDMA) .
Much evidence exists from before 1985, when MDMA was made illegal in the USA, that MDMA proves as an extremely valuable adjunct to psychotherapy . One researcher has been quoted as saying that "One therapist has estimated that in five hours of one [MDMA] session clients could activate and process psychic material that would normally require five months of weekly session."
5) Should initial and subsequent trials prove fruitful in using MDMA as a psychotherapeutic drug, would the government consider legalising it for that purpose?
If not, on what grounds? Does the government believe that there is a superior option for treatment of trauma victims, especially in treatment-resistant subgroups? If so, what measures is the government taking to ensure adequate support and care is being given to people suffering from treatment-resistant psychiatric illnesses? Are any other lines of investigation being pursued as how to best serve this particular group of people?
Also: Should the USA legalise MDMA for the aforementioned purpose, would the NSW government follow suit?
Much research has been propounded by agents of the US government as to the potential ills of MDMA. Several retractions by their prime researcher , George Ricuarte, have severely impacted on the credibility of the research from his team and the associated John Hopkins University research.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) once prominently declared that ecstasy users were suffering brain damage; they now merely say that “Research in animals indicates that MDMA is neurotoxic; whether or not this is also true in humans is currently an area of intense investigation."
Their website also previously featured an extremely well-known graphic, entitled “plain brain / brain after ecstasy” which has also been removed due to published criticisms about the validity of the neuroimaging studies from which the graphic was derived.
Ricuarte’s work has been contradicted by multiple international teams that conducted larger and better-controlled studies than Ricuarte’s, including ones from Germany , the UK and the Netherlands .
These studies involve users with lifetime averages of upwards of 500 pills (indeed one volunteer had taken nearly 2000 pills) of ecstasy.
It is worth noting that, at the time of scheduling in 1985, a United States Federal Judge recommended that MDMA be made available for strictly-controlled medical use on the basis that it did have a legitimate medical use
Given that the USA’s illegalisation of MDMA was based on Ricuarte’s increasingly discredited research, the grounds on which it was scheduled are becoming increasingly tenuous.
6) Is the NSW government aware of the view that Ricuarte’s work is becoming increasingly uncredible? If so, what is the government’s response to this knowledge? Does the government still place confidence in the research body backing MDMA's outright illegality?
7) Is the NSW government therefore prepared to review the status of MDMA and the research surrounding it, and subsequently make the results of this review available publically?
On a conclusive note, to what degree does the health ministry believe that drug use is best treated as a health and social problem rather than a criminal problem?
Does the government believe that criminal legislation is the superlative and effective method of restricting and preventing drug use when over a third of the Australian population has tried cannabis/marijuana, and over one third of the population aged 20-29 uses illicit drugs in any given year ? When over 50% of 17 year old secondary school students have tried cannabis? On the standards of myself and many of my colleagues, this can hardly be seen as a success (in any sense of the word) in preventing drug use.
--
thoughts?
