Established 1970

The author has repeatedly requested over the years to give presentations/seminars, the equal equivalent of this paper, and which have been refused, to the following:

1. Oral presentations to all the State and Federal parliamentary drug committees.
2. The S.A. Institute of Justice Studies.
3. S.A. Australian Crime Prevention Council.
4. The S.A. Law Society.
5. The Law Chapter of the Alumni Association of Adelaide University.
6. The numerous International drug conferences in Australia.

Why the refusals? Is the problem the truth.

The latest refusal is to be a delegate and speaker to the S.A. Premiers' Adelaide Drugs Summit, June 24-28, 2002. Which refusals are confirmation of the massive conspiracy by Authority of concealing all aspects of the truth about the illegal drugs and maintaining the world-wide Orwellian lies to justify their hypocritical unjust cruel punishments by the State.

ANY drug (except alcohol and the benzodiazepines - why? Romans 6.23) which gives pleasure and happiness and changes in inner consciousness is to be prohibited and automatically defined as "a dangerous drug of addiction" according to the religious mentality, nothing to do with pharmacological harm.

The legal profession from the Supreme Courts down are up to their necks in the conspiracy of Orwellian lying to justify the drug laws. Where is authorities evidence that their illegal drugs are "dangerous drugs of addiction"? Or is truth being established by authoritarian decree, characteristic of the religious mentality? It is not that the courts should determine whether we have a G.S.T. or not, but that the Drug Laws themselves are LIES (one is under oath to tell the truth in court). The drug laws can be torpedoed quickly and simply by exposing the Orwellian lies and telling the pharmacological truth, as in the following paper. But the drug laws are a goldmine for the legal profession and covered by their Nuremberg/Eichmann Defence. A very sleazy profession.

To the judiciary: Which statements in this paper are false?

I first made a submission to the Senate on drugs in 1970. To me it is self-evident that there has to be good reason for the State to:-

(1) Imprison people for 25 or more years:
(2) Unjustly and disproportionately confiscate property:
(3) Have witch-hunts and anonymous dobbing-in.

To see if the State can justify the above we will look at:

(1) The jurisprudence and ethics of the drug laws,
(2) The real pharmacological harm of the drugs,
(3) The compartmentalisation of the mind on the drug laws,
(4) The historical basis of the drug laws and why the draconian penalties,
(5) The incredible fact no politician will justify their draconian penalties for drugs, safer in all respects, including hangovers, than the Queen's Honours drug, alcohol, as if it is a priori obvious that no justification for those penalties is needed.

1. THE JURISPRUDENCE AND ETHICS

In the abstract, say we have three drugs A, B, C. Drug A is pharmacologically and psychologically far more harmful than drugs B or C in the following 6 respects:

(I) Death rates
(II) Addiction rates
(III) Withdrawal
(IV) Overdose
(V) Destruction of brain/body cells
(VI) Behaviour

Politicians then give the Queen's Honours to the producers of drug A and simultaneously give 25 years jail with appalling unjust disproportionate confiscation of property to the producers of drugs B or C.

(i) In abstract jurisprudence is this the highest level of hypocrisy and injustice? If not, why not? (Perhaps Romans 6:23 for the not.)
(ii) What is the principle in jurisprudence which uses the Nuremberg/Eichmann defence "It is the Law" to say there must be obedience to lying, cruel and unjust laws?
(iii) In jurisprudence is it the case that a lie is not a lie when it is the Law?
(iv) What principle in jurisprudence allows the Law to be used as the instrument for cruelty & injustice?

ETHICALLY it is quite simple:
(i) If people prefer to relax with drugs B or C, instead of drug A, why does the State want to punish or rehabilitate them?
(ii) If drug penalties were proportional to their pharmacological harm should drug A get the longest prison sentence instead of the Queen's Honours?

Now identify, drug A = alcohol, drug B = marihuana, Drug C = heroin, if pure.

2. PHARMACOLOGICAL HARM

Both marihuana and heroin, if pure, are far safer pharmacologically and psychologically than alcohol in the following six respects:

(i) DEATH RATES

98% of drug deaths in Australia are due to alcohol/tobacco.
In 1980 (the year of the Justice E.S. Williams Royal Commission on Drugs) the Federal Department of Health figures on death due to drugs were:
Narcotics 90, barbiturates 280, alcohol 3600, alcohol related 1829, road alcohol 3478, (total alcohol 8907), tobacco 16,200. Similar figures have occurred every year since.

Even in the drug ravaged U.S. A. in 1985 the deaths due to alcohol/tobacco were 400,000 relative to only 3562 due to ALL the illegal drugs COMBINED.

Note that everything is toxic in sufficient quantities. The question is how much and in what way? One can die from drinking 14 litres of pure water (convulsions, coma), 10 grams of caffeine, 4lb of sugar.

(ii) ADDICTION RATES

Research made unwillingly by the U.S. Army on its Vietnam War veterans showed that nearly half used heroin (95% pure), 7% of those stayed on it on return to the U.S.A. with only 1% of these being addicted. The research was forced on the U.S. Army because many soldiers claimed disability pensions on the grounds that heroin addiction is permanent and disqualifies the user from any sort of productive life. Originally the heroin was smoked until Authority clamped down and it became more cost-effective to inject.

The addiction rate for social ALCOHOL drinkers is 15% with another 5% "at risk". ("Addiction" is when stopping taking the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms not present before taking it. e.g. alcohol "Dependence" is when cessation means just returning to the previous status quo e.g. insulin.)

(iii) WITHDRAWL

For Heroin, 48 hours and like a bad cold. The easiest to treat. For Alcohol, 6-7 days, with convulsions and seizures ("the rum fits"), toxic psychosis (hallucinations -"pink elephants" or worse, persecutory delusions), cardiovascular impairment, D.T.'s (delirium tremors), death. But the worst, most horrible, and hardest to treat withdrawal is from the respectable BENZODIAZEPINES (valium, serepax, mogadon, euphnos et al). Martindale pharmacopoeia reports addiction rates of 44% on the normal therapeutic dose after 4 weeks, with withdrawal lasting more than a year. (Beautrice Faust "Benzo Junkie" took 3-4 years). CAT scans show brain damage like alcohol. They also cause depression as a side effect, yet they are prescribed for people suffering from pre-existing depression, then headaches. Illogical. But not a whimper from the Federal Department of Health warning the public about the benzodiazepines. Why the cover-up? Just imagine if Authority could pin those figures on marihuana or heroin! What Authority tells the public about drugs is a matter of Authority's political convenience.

(iv) OVERDOSE

For HEROIN, if pure, a relatively slow death by respiratory depression, up to 12 or more hours, but there is a prompt (within one minute) recovery with the antidotes nalorphine or naloxone. Most of the heroin deaths are due to the unknown concentration and/or the junk impurities, which lead to blood clots or pulmonary oedema, not the heroin itself.

For ALCOHOL, the stomach pump.

(v) DESTRUCTION OF BODY/BRAIN CELLS

For HEROIN, if pure, NONE
For ALCOHOL, well documented. (nervous system, heart, brain, liver, foetal, circulation, kidneys, et al.)

(vi) BEHAVIOUR

For HEROIN (and MARIHUANA) - passive and peaceful.
For ALCOHOL - boorish and aggressive.

Dr H. Dale Beckett (“Age” 21/01/85): “Heroin is very gentle and if proper care is taken in self-injecting, it is extraordinarily safe”. (tissue damage results because of the bacteria in the non sterile street heroin and/ or dirty needles).

Dr Jean Leanane (“National Times” 12/12/82) in charge of the detoxification Unit at the Rozelle Psychiatric Hospital: “Heroin withdrawal is the easiest that we have 48 hours, next comes alcohol and barbiturates 5 days, but the worst kind of withdrawal is the respectable Serepax and Valium”. (Fits, convulsions, hallucinations 3-4 weeks).

Dr Les Drew (Federal Department of Health Advisor) ABC TV 19/06/86: “Withdrawal from heroin is just like the ‘flu no worse – more like a bad cold than the ‘flu. It is very hard to get addicted to heroin you’ve got to really try”.

The Reverend Dr. John Williams (The Age 06/04/82): “Tony did not kill himself. Heroin as such did not kill him. I killed him. The Volvo socialists and white wine whingers of the world killed him. The Laws of the Land killed him. Politicians killed him.

MARIHUANA - Corresponding figures to the above for pot are not obtainable, although pot is "the most widely abused drug" and widely researched. Authority for years has been trying to pin something bad on pot. First, Authority said it was an aphrodisiac for rapists, then later the opposite, it lowered sex drive and sperm count. Then they said it caused cancer and chromosome breaks, but went quiet on this when it turned out that aspirin and caffeine caused a greater rate of genetic damage. People like Dr Anderson (The Age 19/06/00) are running the line that pot causes schizophrenia. In reply Christopher A. Joseph, Ohio US (The Age 19/06/00) state that “Some doctors believe that these types of patient may be alleviating their symptoms by self medicating with marijuana, not causing the disorder with chronic use. Marijuana’s main active ingredient THC has proven to be an analogue for the neurotransmitter anandimide, something schizophrenics have a deficiency in” and quotes as reference The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal for the American Medical Association.

Under the Title “High Time for Hooligans” The Australian 16/06/00 reported that the Dutch have stumbled upon a way to keep European soccer thugs from trying to kill each other: give them reefers. Eindenhoven police were expecting the riots, stabbings arson and civil mayhem at the European Cup. It didn’t happen because “the cream of England’s thugs was smoking pot which is easily and legally available in the Netherlands. Post game fury was kept in check by street vendors offering ready-rolled reefers”.

Any "research" results by the United Nations Narcotic Commission are immediately suspect for "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - after the banning comes the lying fallacious reasons.

Both marihuana and heroin, if pure, are extraordinarily gentle and safe drugs. This could be because the body itself produces small quantities of its own heroin and T.H.C. as a sub-set of the class of endorphins produced by the body (The Age 22/7/90), The Australian 10/8/90).

Joggers and long distance runners get "high" on their own endorphin heroin-like molecules produced by their own bodies. The Justice Williams Royal Commission on Drugs (page F35) quote, "Major drug offences are among the most serious of crimes. The growing community awareness of the problem has allowed governments of recent times to equate these offences with murder and to provide penalties, including sentences of life imprisonment" Williams drew the line for "trafficking" at 5kg cannabis, 0.3kg heroin etc, Lesser quantities got 5 years for "possession". No penalties for alcohol. Perhaps Justice Williams would recommend only 5 years jail be given to joggers for "possession" and not "trafficking". The Williams Report is another example of how the legal mind can come to any conclusion it wants to or needs to, irrespective of reason or evidence. 3. COMPARTMENTALISATION OF THE MIND ON DRUGS

Some Nazi SS guards at Buchenwald, Auschwitz and Belsen were model fathers to their own children and family at home, genuinely appreciated Goethe and Beethoven, but tortured and killed in the most sadistic way Jewish children and families while "at work".

Similarly with our Drug laws, the Queen's Honours to alcohol, the most dangerous of the hard drugs, then 25 years jail for marihuana and heroin, which if pure, are extraordinarily gentle and safe.

Most people are not even conscious of this contradictory attitude and behaviour, or if so, think it is of no concern to them. We never learn, but as Spike Milligan said "the human race is an appalling species" Q.E.D.

4. THE HISTORICAL BASIS

A small unaccountable clique (less than 20) of Christian and Moslem authoritarian religious temperance wowsers (clones of Harry J. Anslinger), conspiring with the U.S.A., have got control of the U.N. World Health 0rganisation Narcotics Commission and this clique, with their "expert" advisers, determines drug policy for the whole world. It has little to do with pharmacological drug harm.

Another example of the U.N. Narcotics Commission and the Federal Department of Health was their Orwellian lying out of existence the safest and most effective sedative drug methaqualone. When combined with an antihistamine, diphenhydramine, it became "most widely abused" i.e. a recreational drug, Mandrax. But the recreational effect was from the antihistamine, not the pure methaqualone. The outlawing of methaqualone led to people being forced by Hobson's choice to use the horrid benzodiazepines (see above). The U.N.W.H.O. mob made a double mistake, but are not going to admit it.

Harry J Anslinger was head of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Narcotics which enforced the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S.A. from 1919 to 1933. When prohibition was repealed, Anslinger, in order to keep and justify his existence and job, created the Orwellian lies about a new killer drug - marihuana. Marihuana was first recorded by the Chinese in 2737 B.C. and in the State of Virginia in 1631 it became compulsory by law that farmers grow a certain percentage of marihuana because of its diverse and deep industrial use. It is the toughest natural fibre in existence (hemp rope etc.) and produces three times as much fibre per acre than cotton, four times more pulp than woodchip to produce quality archival paper. Because of its toughness marihuana was a great threat to the new chemical artificial nylon fibre industry and the latter joined in the Conspiracy of Orwellian lies about pot.

Along with its medicinal use (glaucoma, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, chemo-therapy cancer) pot is being denied its use for society because of Harry J Anslinger being the single major cause of the Orwellian lies and laws about marihuana. With such an historical basis the Law is neither majestic nor dignified.

In 1937 Anslinger had a hearing conducted before Congress which resulted in the Marihuana Tax Act and henceforth the whole legal injustice took off. The reason for a tax law instead of direct prohibition of the drug itself was to avoid the Constitutional test of the U.S. Bill of Rights. A small number of one-sided witnesses recited every conceivable form of degeneracy due to pot. A pharmacist and veterinarian testified about the effects on the personality of dogs. The U.S. Government grants licences only to those researchers who it knows are very sympathetic to pinning something bad on pot. Good credentials would be membership of the Moral Majority.

In 1946 Anslinger became the U.S. representative to the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs and this gave his lies even more respectability and authority. The Big Lie became The Truth. - Real Orwell.

In 1961 at the instigation of Anslinger and without any public hearing, the U.S. Senate brought in the International Treaty of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Anslinger was well satisfied, "These people (Leary, Ginsberg, far out professors) are wasting their time, now we've got this treaty." Australia is a signatory to this treaty.

OPIUM - Around 1901 in N.Z., U.S.A., and Canada the Opium Prohibition Act came into force with the stated intention of preventing opium smoking by the Chinese. But the reasons were not pharmacological. The reasons were the economic conflicts between the Chinese and Whites.

The Chinese were intelligent, industrious and well-disciplined. They also used opium to relax, which did not hinder them. If it had hindered them then the whites would have encouraged that opium use, as the whites encouraged the use of alcohol among the Red Indians and Eskimos. (Professor Thomas Szasz Head of Psychiatry, Berkeley University.) "Ceremonial Chemistry".

The marihuana laws were similarly used to get at the Mexican and Negro minorities. Ideal scapegoat drugs.

WHY THE DRACONIAN PENALTIES

The Christian Temperance movements from the 1850's onwards campaigned for alcohol and opiate prohibition. The authoritarian religious (Jews, Christians, Moslems, Confucians et al) of any religion want to have power and mind control on how others get their spiritual pleasure and happiness or changes of inner consciousness.

But in Hindu India hashish is used in their ritual worship of Shiva, one of their trinity of gods. A bag of hashish can be bought in government shops for $5.00 but if brought into Australia you may get 20 years or in Bali Schapelle Corby execution or life imprisonment. The Catholic Mass uses alcohol in its ritual worship of the Trinity of Jesus. The Mass would be Mumbo-Jumbo if it wasn’t for the wine.

Redemptive Suffering means suffering makes other people see the need for God and Jesus. Heresy needs to be severely punished. Pleasurable drugs take people away from God, Reality and Suffering. There is no one more sadistic and cruel than the loving self-righteous authoritarian religious. That is why the drug laws are so cruel. Harry J. Anslinger in Playboy Februry 1970 panel discussion page 74 said “History is strewn with the bones of nations that tolerated moral laxity and hedonism”.

"Christians are the enemies of freedom and pleasure." 'The High Price of Heaven' - David Marr.

There are now appalling injustices, particularly in the U.S.A. under Reagan and the Bush laws. Appalling unjust disproportionate confiscation of property, even before the trial (if found not guilty one can attempt to claim it back), is coupled with mandatory prison sentences of 5 years without parole for "manufacturing" 100 or more marihuana plants.

All this is of the same religious mentality as the 1234 to 1836 A.D. world-wide (Europe and America) Christian witch and heresy hunts, whereby there was burning to death, confiscation of all property (again before the witch or heresy trial) and anonymous dobbing-in, even by children of their parents (justified by Matthew 21:16). The 1487 Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer for Witches) by Dominicans Sprenger and Kramer is an eye-opener as to the religious and legal mentality. Malleus Maleficarum page 6, "very often they were deported to some distant and deserted island and all their goods sold by public auction. Moreover, those who consulted or resorted to witches were punished with exile and the confiscation of all their property". Similarly the WA Labor Government’s barbaric confiscation of ALL property and assets except personal clothes and photos.

THE DRUG COURTS

These have been set up to divert those charged with illegal drug use, but to what?
Where is the logic in diverting users of the non-toxic cannabis and heroin (addiction rate 1%) back to the legal toxic drugs alcohol (addiction rate 15%) and the benzodiazepines (addiction rate 44%) which cause permanent brain damage?

WHY THE CONSPIRACY?

So why as the world-wide conspiracy and well orchestrated litany of lies by Authority been allowed to go on for so long?

Both heroin and marihuana are cheap to produce. Illegality makes their black market prices and profits high. Divide by 10⁴ any figures stated by the police in a drug haul. The last thing the Mafia-type criminals want is their relatively harmless opiates to be legal.

But the main reason is that a vast legal bureaucracy is parasitic on the drug laws - the police corrupt drug squads, the D.E.A., the N.C.A., judges, prosecuting /defending lawyers, government health bureaucrats, drug rehabilitation centres, prison officers, forensic scientists, politicians, all with a vested interest, like the Mafia criminals, in suppressing the pharmacological truth and wanting the relatively safe opiates to be illegal.

Unjust and bad laws means lots of law-breakers and hence jobs and big bucks, particularly for the sleazy legal profession. You can hear the dollar coins dropping every micro-second in a court case.

Drug prohibition causes the growth of THE MAFIA, HOUSE BREAKING, VIOLENCE, FRAUD, POLICE CORRUPTION, that is, REAL crime. "CRIMINOGENESIS" describes laws that create crime.

THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND ITS MOTIVES:

In the 19th century there were other sources for health care - patent medicine men, herbalists et al, and it took years for the medical profession to drive them out of the health market and get monopoly control. The battle against herbalists and Chiropractors is still going on. But it was not to save people, but to save the health market from competition. The primitive reptilian part of the medical professions' brain to do with the love of money, power and status is very well developed. Like the legal profession.

If the farrago of Orwellian lies (which is THE drug problem) by the U.N.W.H.O. Narcotics Commission had been nipped in the bud years ago we would not have a drug problem, except alcohol and the benzodiazepines. The biggest problem for heroin users is the impurities, the cost, and being caught. 88% of clients in the Ballarat Drug and Alcohol Centre were there for alcohol, the rest by court order with Hobson's Choice, that or jail.

Marihuana used to be defined by the law as a "drug of addiction", but since that was patently false, it became the more vague and hence harder to disprove "drug of dependence" (we are all dependent on water, nay, even addicted). It is now a "dangerous drug of dependence". An example of Orwellian newspeak.

But even the law cannot define white to be black. When the legal system convicts on marihuana offences, defined by law, not on facts or evidence, to be "a dangerous drug of dependence” then the legal system is aiding and abetting the conspiracy and litany of lies by Authority to justify its cruel sentences.

In Jurisprudence when a law is a lie by all other criteria, it is not a lie by legal definition. A lie is not a lie when it is the Law. Such infallibility is only available in religious belief, which is precisely why the opiates were outlawed in the first place. It had nothing to do with pharmacological harm. The appalling thing about the cruel drug laws is that lying Authority will get off scot-free. It is the duty of governments to tax sin, not prohibit it.

THE D.P.P. & DRUGS

This question was asked of the N.S.W Director of Public Prosecution, Nicholas Cowdery, who wants drug reform, at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas (13th July 2001) by the writer.

"The Law defines cannabis and heroin as dangerous drugs of addiction. Scientifically they are not. Now one is under oath to tell the truth in court so why don't you direct the jury to find the accused not guilty on the grounds that the law itself is a Liar, i.e. these drugs are not dangerous drugs of addiction.?"

The D.P.P. replied that he had to apply democratically made Law. To which I replied that was the Nuremberg/Eichmann Defense and Dreyfus Excuse and Hitler was democratically, legally constitutionally elected by the German people with 53% of the vote. (This raises serious questions about the nature of Law.)

SEIZURE OF ASSETS LAW

Some examples of the cruelty of the drug laws:

(1) In Australia in 1983 a woman who took the telephone calls for a drug syndicate and a first offender got these conditions for bail; to report 3 times a day, seven days a week. This went on for three years until she had a nervous breakdown from this exquisite form of legal torture. Only then was the bail conditions relaxed to 3 times a week for the next 2 years, until her trial when she got 10 years jail. (Sunday Age 25-8-91).

(2) In N.Y. State a lawyer built his house by himself over 9 years on 48 hectares. The D.E.A., on a tip-off, raided his house and found 110 pot plants (with no intention to sell). He got 5 years mandatory, no parole, jail and under the 1988 U.S. Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund Law the government seized all his house and land. If an owner wants to get his assets back he must go to court to prove his property was innocent of "facilitating a crime." In another case 2 telephone calls was sufficient to confiscate a home. (Sunday Age 18-7-93).

(3) In California, a retired 73 year old electronics engineer was busted for 164 small pot plants on his property which his 56 year old de-facto used for her crippling pain from spinal disc displacements. She committed suicide when subpoenaed to testify against him. He stands to lose everything he worked for over a lifetime. (The Age 24-2-93).

The Law is supposed to be about truth and justice and one is under oath to tell the truth in court when giving evidence, but the Law itself can Lie with impunity. In jurisprudence a lie is not a lie when it is the Law.

THE NEDERWIET NETHERLANDS

In the Netherlands marihuana has been tolerated for more than 30 years. There are 1500 marihuana "coffee shops", 600 of which are located in Amsterdam. The local hemp/weed ("nederwiet") is grown in greenhouses. Most of the imported hemp comes from Morocco and Turkey.

Estimates give 750,000 locals inhale on a regular basis. The biggest "coffee shop" in Amsterdam is the $1.4 million Grasshopper and crowds still gather at the Amsdam Hash Museum. Despite tremendous pressure by its neighbours Belgium, France, Germany and the U.K. to introduce prohibition the Netherlands have resisted. There is a present worry that the capitalist Russian mafia are getting involved. (The Age 17-6-95). The today's prices of hash are read over the radio like the stock exchange reports and heroin is sold on the barges in the canals in Amsterdam.

Yet the fabric of Netherlands society has not been torn asunder by these drugs and if there are terrible health and social problems from these drugs why hasn't the Netherlands banned them after more than 30 years of massive use? Is it that both marihuana and heroin are extraordinary gentle and safe drugs and Authority has lied in the most Orwellian way?

Note (1) For wounded German army soldiers heroin was called the Heroic Drug because it stopped the pain and the soldiers stayed awake, whereas morphine stopped the pain but the soldier went to sleep. (Background Briefing 5RN 23-7-95).

Note (2) Cannabis Drivers not so dopey - cannabis may make drivers more careful, a conference on drugs, alcohol and traffic safety has been told. A Victorian study of 1052 fatalities, by Dr Olaf Drummer from The Department of Forensic Medicine at Monash University showed that the people who had tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, the active ingredient in cannabis) in their systems were less likely to be the cause of a fatality than those who had no THC in their systems.

Drivers who had alcohol in their systems were seven times more likely to be the cause of a fatal accident. Dr Drummer suggested that drivers who had taken cannabis over-compensated by slowing down. (The Age l5-8-95).


THE EFFECT OF CANNABIS ON DRIVING

A Victorian study of 1052 fatalities, by Dr Olaf Drummer from The Department of Forensic Medicine at Monash University showed that the people who had tetrahydrocannabinol (or THC, the active ingredient in cannabis) in their systems were less likely to be the cause of a fatality than those who had no THC in their systems.

Drivers who had alcohol in their systems were seven times more likely to be the cause of a fatal accident. Dr Drummer suggested that drivers who had taken cannabis over-compensated by slowing down. (The Age l5-8-95).

Dr Hindrik Robbe, Institute of Human Psychopharmacology in the Netherlands, tested in real heavy traffic the effect of moderate cannabis doses (300 micrograms/Kg body weight) and. showed that the psycho active TUC did not impair driving performance. (13th International Conference Adelaide August '95 (The Advertiser 9/8/95).

This is backed up by our own Dr Jack McLean who agrees "studies overseas show that drivers were able to perform safely in heavy traffic after smoking moderate amounts marijuana (The Advertiser 9/8/95). Jack McLean also said: "Cannabis was not a significant cause of fatal road crashes, the overwhelming concern was alcohol." (The Advertiser 7/6/96) and again, "While alcohol vastly increases the risk of crashing, marihuana could decrease risk slightly." (The Advertiser 5/12/97) Prof. Pennington said the same in The Age 5/6/96.

The effects of cannabis on driving is less than 2 hours (The Age 23/3/94) - The half life of cannabis is 7 days but is not psychoactive so that this presence in blood and urine does not mean affecting driving skills. (Australian 23/3/94)

Traces of cannabis in fatalities does not necessarily implicate cause.

Transport S.A. report: Blood samples of 2500 drivers in S.A. : "the culpability rates for injured drivers who tested positive for cannabis were no higher than those for drug and alcohol free drivers" Dr. Jason White, (The Advertiser 19/10/98)

Now 0.05 is the set lower limit for alcohol that affects driving. There is no set lower limit for cannabis that affects driving in what way? Why not?

Passive inhalation of cannabis smoke from some one else can lead to a positive result in saliva road drug tests. (The Age 7/12/04)

....PhD graduate Dr Marie Longo, from the University's Department of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology analysed the blood sample results from 2500 South Australian drivers injured in road crashes for alcohol, marijuana, stimulants and tranquillisers.

....Her major finding regarded tranquillisers, with a significant relationship emerging between having tranquillisers either at the prescribed levels or above and being culpable in crashes.

Dr Longo, who now works as a Project Officer for the Drug and Alcohol Services Council, also found:

• Alcohol still overwhelmingly plays the greatest role in road crashes - it is the most frequently detected drug, and produces the greatest effects;
  
• Conversely, and perhaps controversially, marijuana has a negligible impact on culpability;
  
• Stimulants also have little effect on culpability.
  
  

"The most interesting result for me was the tranquillisers, because of the ramifications it could have," she said.

"What I found was that if a person took tranqullisers like Valium or Serepax at or above prescribed levels, the chance of being culpable in a road crash would increase from the 53% chance if you had no drugs to 70% if you had the tranquillisers.

The really important thing to emerge from this is that this increase in culpability was not only for having above the prescribed levels of tranquillisers in someone's system, but also at the prescribed levels...."

...Another interesting finding from Dr Longo's study was that by itself, marijuana had little or no effect on culpability in crashes - although when combined with alcohol or other drugs, culpability rates began to soar.( [Adelaidean] University of Adelaide, April 2002.)

State Labor governments are setting up police States. Congratulations.

THE CONTINUING DRUGS SAGA

(1) The 7th. International Conference on the Reduction of Drug related Harm ("Harm Minimisation") in Hobart 1996 did not permit me to present the above paper. "Harm minimization" is Orwellian Newspeak to cover-up the fact that Authority has lied and demonised on the harm of the opiates in the most Orwellian way. To cut the Gordian knot of the evil and cruelty that results from the present drug laws, the public should be told the pharmacological truth about the opiates for a change.

The reason for the draconian laws is not pharmacological, but the religious authoritarian puritanism which emerged during the Christian Temperance movements of the 1850s onwards.

Both heroin and cannabis, if pure, are relatively extraordinarily gentle and safe drugs. To justify its cruel sentences, Authority has lied and demonised, with witch-hunt mentality, the opiates in the most Orwellian way. The medical and legal profession has been up to its neck in the conspiracy.

Alcohol, even if pure, causes permanent brain, liver, kidney, heart, circulatory, neurological and foetal damage. MIMS pharmacopoeia indicates that alcohol has no medicinal use whatsoever, except as an ingredient in hair shampoo and in the treatment of rough skin. It is a purely recreational drug.

Aldous Huxley said the West needs a substitute for alcohol for obvious reasons. Ethically it is quite simple:

If people prefer to relax with the opiate drugs which do not cause brain, liver, kidney, heart etc damage, as does the Queen's Honours drug alcohol, why aren't these people commended? Instead they are imprisoned. Why?

(2) Liberal politicians say the Liberal party platform advocates individual freedom of choice etc. Why doesn't this apply to an individual's freedom of choice of drugs which do not cause brain etc damage as does the Queen's Honours drug alcohol?

5. OTHER COUNTRIES' DRUG LAWS

In February 1996 an English girl, Sandra Gregory, was sentenced in Thailand to 25 years imprisonment (after waiting 3 years in prison for the trial) for trafficking (?) in 87 grams of heroin. Law Professor Norval Morris has said that Thailand's jails are amongst the worst in the world. Her physical health is deteriorating and she is losing her mind, breaking down and crying and keeps on repeating "it's not fair, it's not fair, it's really so unfair."

In April this year three Australians, Doniger, Spinner and McKenzie each received 50 years imprisonment for each possessing 38 grams of heroin.

The response of Australia's white and red wine connoisseurs to these appallingly cruel and sadistic sentences is "Druggies know the law is severe on drugs", "The Law is the Law", you cannot complain about other countries' laws". Echoes of the Nuremberg/Eichmann defense.

But the reason why the laws are so draconian in the S.E. Asian countries et al is simply because of U.S. government pressure. Opium was legal in Thailand 30 years ago, but the U.S. government acting through the U.N.W.H.O. Narcotics Commission, put pressure on these countries to outlaw the opiates with the slogan: "SAY NO TO DRUGS, YES FOR AID".

People must realise the initiative for the worldwide conspiracy of Orwellian lies and demonisation of the opiates came and comes from the U.S.A. What is so appalling is how and why this conspiracy has been allowed to go on for so long.

6. TACTICS?

Since the major newspapers are in on the conspiracy of suppressing the pharmacological truth, the problem is what to do to get the truth to the public.

The decriminalisation experiment with the opiates has been conducted successfully in Holland. (Has the schizophrenia rate gone up in Holland?) But this successful experiment does not count as evidence for decriminalisation.

The demonisation of the opiates is based on religious belief and values, and hence it is difficult to use reason, logic, facts, evidence and truth.

In desperation I thought that since there is a maximum of 7 years prison for fabricating evidence, 14 years for perjury and 2(?) years for creating a false belief, then the judiciary and politicians should be counter-charged with the above criminal offences and an imprisoned person should counter-charge the Authorities with false imprisonment.

An enormous amount of money would be needed, and besides the Law is Infallible (like religion) - "The State can do no wrong". So much for the fraud that the Law is about Truth and Justice.

Adolf Hitler said "people are stupid" and "what luck for the rulers that men do not think." Spike Milligan, ' the human race is an appalling species.' Such statements are bound to arise when considering the drug laws. In the Netherlands the Authorities go to Rave Parties, not to arrest people but chemically test the Ecstasy tablets for concentration and purity. Footnote: Information has been forwarded stating that this has been abrogated by the new Christian government.

INVALIDATING THE LAW?

In a letter to The Age 7-4-91 John McNicol of the ACT. Social Conscience Group wrote: "According to an old English and American common law tradition, trial by jury gave Juries the power to rule not only on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, but on the validity or justice of the law itself. So if a jury finds a law to be unjust, they have the power to invalidate the law and acquit a defendant. Why are not modern day juries instructed on their role or is it a case of seeking to keep the mystique associated with the law to the brotherhood?"

Now the law on the opiates, marihuana and heroin, is a Liar on their psychological and pharmacological harm, is barbaric, cruel, unjust and wrong (S. A. Humanist Post. August 1994, October 1995). So why don't the defending lawyers for those charged with opiate offences direct the juries to acquit because the law is unjust?

The Law has shown no remorse for its lying and should never have lied in the first place.

P.S. In 1961 the U.S.A. brought on the International Treaty of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Australia is a signatory to this treaty. Opponents of drug reform say we cannot break the treaty.

But since the U.S. acting through the U.N.W.H.O. Narcotic Commission has Orwellianly lied on the harm of the opiates for religious reasons then Australia could abrogate its obligation on the grounds that Australia was fraudulently duped, deceived, lied to about the opiates' harm to get its signature. False pretences.

FAILURE OF THE DRUG WAR

In 1996 there were 37 heroin drug related deaths in Holland with a population of 15.5 million. Most of the 37 were foreigners, because the foreigners were too scared to ring for an ambulance.

Holland for decades has had a policy of pseudo-legality of the opiates (marihuana and heroin). The Dutch authorities go to rave parties not to arrest people but test the Ecstasy tablets for concentration and purity. This has now been stopped by the new Dutch Christian Government just as they are going to stop the government regulated medicinal cannabis for chronic pain sufferers like multiple sclerosis and cancer (The Age 23/03/05. In Australia in 1996 there were 642 deaths due to heroin, mostly unnecessary, because of its unknown concentration and the junk impurities which cause allergic reactions, blood clots and pulmonary oedema. Heroin if pure, is an extraordinarily gentle and safe drug.

In Australia in 1980 the deaths due to heroin were 90. (Alcohol 8907).

Hence in 16 years the heroin death numbers have been multiplied by 7 times despite the millions of dollars spent on this "Drug War" in Australia.

If the Australian authorities were genuine about reducing the deaths due to heroin, then they should look to Holland which obviously is doing something right. Perhaps like telling the pharmacological truth for a change.

THE REASON WHY PEOPLE PREFER THE OPIATES TO ALCOHOL

1. It needs to be made explicit why people prefer to use the opiates (marihuana and heroin) as the drugs of choice instead of the Queen's Honours drug alcohol.

In the Short Term
The opiates are far more pleasant than alcohol and with little or no hangover. Opiate behaviour is passive and peaceful. Alcohol behaviour is boorish and aggressive. True or false?

In the Long Term
The opiates are non-toxic and do not cause permanent brain, liver, kidney, pancreas, heart, foetal, circulatory, neurological damage as does the Queen’s Honours drug alcohol. Alcohol is very toxic *A Alcohol addiction rate is 15%, heroin addiction rate for the U.S. Vietnam soldiers 1%. *B True or false?
Cannabis non-toxic, Professor Lester Grinspoon, Harvard Medical School.

2. The front cover of the report of the W. A. Legislative Assembly Select Committee into the Misuse of Drugs Act states: "Taking the Profit Out of Drug Trafficking."

When the police say they made a $1 million drug haul, if the drugs were legal it would only be $100 i.e. divide by 10⁴

So the answer to the W.A. Parliament's cover to the rational mind is obvious - legalise the opiates.

3. Authority is posing this phoney dilemma: - We have these terribly dangerous opiate drugs on the one hand and on the other hand we have the Mafia, house-burglaries, corrupt police, violent crime etc. (just as in the U.S. Prohibition of Alcohol) i.e. Criminogenesis, laws that create real crime.

To resolve this phoney dilemma, you tell the pharmacological truth for a change. The opiates, if pure, are gentle and safe drugs.

The opiate laws can be torpedoed simply by telling the pharmacological truth for a change and exposing the Orwellian lies.

The Law is a Liar, has shown no remorse for its lying and should never have lied in the first place. The message that youth is getting is that Authority lies to get its own way. A good role model?

Footnote: Orally taken liquid heroin linctus was legally available from Australian chemists up to 1953. Heroin was the drug of choice for child-birth, cancer pain and cough suppressant for the aged, besides its recreational use. The liquid form obviously avoids the problems of injection.

No-one was in prison for trafficking or property offences.

In 1953 the Australian government yielded to the U.N.W.H.O. Narcotics Commission to prohibit heroin, because Australian use was high and Australia later signed this International Treaty. Note that these laws are not based on pharmacological harm.

POLICE DRUG CONFERENCE

I attended the Police Drug Conference in the posh Hilton Hotel, Adelaide (there's money in drugs) in April 1999, although they had rejected my paper, "The Jurisprudence of the Illegal Drug Laws and why the Draconian penalties." The paper was rejected, not because what I wrote was false, but because what I said was true. It was very depressing to see the many small and closed minds and worse the psychology of the herd sheep like mentality with its individuals seeking the herd approval.

Then there were those in Authority who know the pharmacological truth on drugs, but suppress it, and keep on with their Orwellian lies to justify their parasitic existence on the drug laws. They couldn't give a damn about the hypocrisy, injustice and unnecessary deaths.

For example, in the "Drugs education in schools" section, the chair told me to sit down when I was reading from the "New Scientist" 21 Feb. 1998, quote: "Dutch teenagers get among the highest scores in the world on international science and mathematics tests. If there are serious problems caused by legalising marihuana, then 20+ years of the Dutch experiment has not revealed what they are."

Prizes are given for the best locally grown pot. (The Age, 15 Dec. 1998) Furthermore Holland has an overseas trade surplus. (+5% of G.D.P.) (c.f. Australia $230 billion overseas debt) (-5.8% of G.D.P) and is in the top league in electronics and biotechnology. Holland's tolerant laws on pot, heroin, ecstasy, and cocaine have not deleteriously affected Holland’s industry, intelligence, creativity, social fabric etc., etc. But Authority doesn't want to know this.

I distributed my material to individuals and publicly posed this question: "How does Authority justify giving the Queen's Honours to the toxic drug alcohol which causes permanent irreversible brain and body cell damage (liver, heart, pancreas, foetal, kidney) with an addiction rate of 15%+, then simultaneously imprison, with unjust confiscation of property, the non-toxic opiates which do not cause brain/body cell damage with an addiction rate of 1% for pure heroin? (The U.S. Vietnam soldiers).

The opiates are non-toxic because the body self-produces its own opiates including the numerous cannabinoids which block pain, regulate the immune system, enhance reproduction and protect the brain from stroke and trauma damage. (The Age, 19 Feb. 1999).

The frustration is that the drug laws and their parasitic conferences could be torpedoed simply by telling the pharmacological truth for a change, but drug prohibition is religious, not pharmacological.

Because of this religious mentality, with its infinite capacity for Orwellian lying, deception and self-deception it is virtually impossible to use reason, logic, facts and truth in the drugs war. Anyone who can believe the Virgin birth (due to a translation error in Isaiah 7:14 "almah" [Young woman] "parthenos" [virgin]) and the Resurrection on the evidence of the Bible (Matt 12:39,27:51, 28:2, Paul 1 Cor 15:3) needs, as Phillip Adams would say, to increase their medication and /or change their therapist. It is 100% certain that there will be great police corruption with the prohibition of prostitution and the drug laws. It is like giving a child a sharp knife and then blaming the child when he cuts himself.

The Justice Sir Edward Williams Drug Commission Report 1980 (page F35) quote: "Major drug offences are among the most serious of crimes. The growing community awareness of the problem has allowed governments of recent times to equate these offences with murder and to provide penalties including sentences of life imprisonment."

During his life Justice Williams sat on the board of Foster's Brewing (The Age, 21 Jan. 1999). A good Catholic. The Justice Williams Report will be a monument to the Intelligence and value system of the legal mind and Judiciary.

30 years ago I found out Authority had Orwellian lied and demonised on pot in the Dec 1969 "Scientific American".

The lying and demonisation on heroin in a review of a book by Dr Joel Fort "The Pleasure Seekers" (U.S. Nation, 29 Dec.1969).

Authority lied approx. 100 years ago and has been lying everyday since and they are not going to admit to their lying.

The religious witch-hunts lasted 600 years from 1234 to l836 justified by Exodus 22:18, Dt. 18:10, Gal. 5:19. The drug witch-hunts are going to last more than 100 years. The same religious mentality, - Evil.

The religious wowsers in the USA tried and failed to outlaw alcohol, but found it easier to outlaw the opiates because opiate use was by ethnic minorities. This has now developed into a world-wide conspiracy. The history of how and why our drug prohibition is disgusting.

"All religious belief is a form of insanity". - Professor Richard Dawkins.

Those who use the illegal opiates are making the sensible, intelligent decision to use drugs which don't cause irreversible brain etc damage like alcohol and the benzodiazepines.

Appendix 1.
To those who commend the setting up of the Drug Courts and those courts which tackle the causes of crime:
Where is the logic in the Drug Courts diverting the non-toxic cannabis and heroin users back to the legal toxic drugs alcohol and the benzodiazepines which latter cause irreversible brain damage? Does "criminogenesis" describe unjust laws which cause real crime?

Aldous Huxley said that the West needs a substitute for alcohol for obvious reasons.

Some drug was necessary to give a way of expression for the frustrations and needs of the primitive drives coming from the lower centres of the brain which developed earlier in the evolutionary tree than the higher centres like the cerebral cortex.

These primitive drives and needs need an outlet and safety-valve and if frustrated mental illness and/or antisocial behaviour could result.

Huxley reckoned the Ancient Greeks kept their civilisation and sanity more because of their periodic sensual orgies and dances than their renowned philosophers, e.g. our present Batchelor and Spinsters' Balls held in the country.

The Justice Williams Royal Commission pages A34-A36 gives 4 pages listing the evil toxic effects of alcohol and yet Williams advocated life imprisonment for those who make the intelligent and rational decision to use the non-toxic illegal drugs which do not cause irreversible brain damage like the toxic alcohol. Another example of the cruel, stupid legal/religious mentality.

The difference in the concepts of truth (and justice) between the disciplines of science and philosophy and the discipline of the Law where in the latter truth is established by authoritarian decree (not on facts or evidence) and a lie is not a lie when it is the Law, is remarkable. In science and philosophy a lie is making a false statement knowing it to be false. How in the whole of history the Law is used as the instrument for cruelty and injustice is a subject for jurisprudence.

And now we have the repeat of the barbaric confiscation of all the property of drug offenders (i.e. legal theft by the State) exactly like in the Christian witch and heresy trials (The Malleus Maleficarum page 6 et al.) And enforced with much relish by good Christian judges. A drug court trial is a farce of truth and justice occurring in an intellectual and moral vacuum. Do the lying laws made by pathological lying politicians in Parliament whose criteria for intelligence is how well you can lie and deceive people, become cleansed, sanitised and anointed by God when signed by the Governor?

Just as the witch hunt Laws were infallible because to deny the existence of witches was a burning alive offence beyond reasonable doubt (question 1 of the Malleus) similarly the Drug Laws are infallible.

Professor David Suzuki's BBC TV program on the beneficial use of cannabis in India (population 1 billion) and the use of the freely available "illegal" drugs in Holland (population 15.5 million) should be good source material for appropriate epidemiological drug research, instead of the Law defining these illegal drugs as " dangerous drugs of addiction" without any scientific evidence.

Appendix 2.
ALCOHOL, NOT ILLEGAL DRUGS, THREAT TO PRISON PEACE.
"Dr John Ellard, a commissioner with the NSW Corrective Services Commission, said if drugs, including heroin, were used by prisoners it doesn't matter. You have a nice quiet jail and a not very productive workshop, but there are not necessarily any problems.

In contrast Dr Ellard said orange juice and Vegemite were banned from jails to stop convicts making home brew. which was far more likely to cause violence and prison riots." (The Australian 2-03-85)

To which I add, the other legal drug to cause aggression in prison are the benzodiazepines, one of which, Rohynol, is nicknamed "Rambos."

Post Script

In the Schapelle Corby Bali drugs trial Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Kealty said the new evidence that could help her was “hearsay on hearsay” (The Age 18/03/05) and not acceptable in court.

Now it is obvious that the Resurrection, virgin birth, miracles etc. of Jesus recorded in the 4 gospels and St Paul is “hearsay on hearsay” as the first gospel St Mark was written at least 40 years after his death. (Events orally remembered or imagined?). But this hearsay is acceptable?

It looks as if the innocent Corby has been used as a sacrificial lamb by the AFP. But the precedent of sacrificing the innocent was set by Jesus himself to save mankind. Evil.

23/05/05

---