THE ADDICTION INDUSTRY
“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad”
The ‘elite’ claim that prohibited drugs have been used for centuries but in fact - at no other time in history have so many young people been exposed to the dangers of such a variety of illegal drugs that are inherently dangerous, addictive and mind-altering.
These illegal substances disturb the chemical balance of the brain and its neurotransmitters and in order to distinguish them from medically prescribed drugs and cultural/social drugs such as cigarettes, alcohol and coffee they should be referred to as ‘street drugs’
It is well known that substances such as heroin, cannabis, ecstasy, caffeine, alcohol and tobacco possess different pharmacological properties and present vastly differing levels of danger to the people who consume them. That is why they are under varying levels of international and national control.
Alcohol: A Mind-Altering Substance
Forty years ago, the Australian government lowered the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen years of age. Up until then sales were restricted to adults twenty-one years and over and regulated as to time, place, amount, etc. There was no such thing as ‘binge drinking’ by teenagers and young adults, and alcohol problems among minors were extremely rare.
Similar to alcohol, marijuana is also a mind -altering substance. But unlike alcohol, that is socially acceptable and used in moderation by most adults, the use of marijuana generally starts before the age of nineteen. Ecstasy and psychotropic pills are also popular with teenagers.
It is also worth noting that adolescents and many young adults simply don’t have the maturity or self-control to handle mind-altering substances. In fact, their brains haven’t fully developed until they are in their early twenties.
Cigarettes: Inherently Dangerous and Addictive
For hundreds of years smoking was an acceptable social custom in western society. However, from the turn of the century onwards, scientific research found more and more evidence associating cigarette smoking with significant health risks including lung cancer, bronchitis, heart disease and stroke. Nevertheless, this did not deter ‘vested interests’ from manipulating and denying the validity of the research for as long as possible.
Marijuana: Mind-altering, Addictive, and Carcinogenic
Since the mid-seventies, there has been a plethora of clinical and scientific research available about the effects of marijuana, and not surprisingly, since both tobacco and marijuana are addictive and contain similar compounds, they are associated with similar health risks. Not only that, but unlike tobacco, studies have revealed that marijuana is implicated in a number of psychiatric illnesses including depression, schizophrenia and psychosis. This is also the case with other street drugs including ecstasy and psychoactive pills.
The money trail.
Remarkably, just as in the case of cigarette smoking, ‘vested interests’ have also carried out a campaign to undermine and understate the results of scientific research about marijuana. However, those with ‘vested interests’ are not necessarily criminals, dealers and drug pushers. The instigators of the proposal to legalise street drugs, particularly marijuana, are academics, lawyers and bureaucrats, many from within the health system itself. *
Of great concern is the fact that many of them have been funded directly or indirectly by pharmaceutical corporation, tobacco companies, and some of the world’s wealthiest men including George Soros a messianic billionaire*, a ‘philanthropist’ and an immensely powerful financial speculator with almost unlimited resources.
Soros is hell-bent on overturning the U.N. sanctions on what he personally perceives to be ‘acceptable’ drugs. As he said “If it were up to me, I would establish a strictly controlled network through which I would make most drugs, excluding the most dangerous one like crack legally available”.
Although one cannot dismiss his opinion as irrelevant - billionaires tend not to be irrelevant – I doubt if even this ‘deity’ could organise a ‘strictly controlled network’ of drug use. The dismal failure of lowering the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen years of age should be proof enough.
*Many of the promoters of cannabis products have heavily invested in shares particularly medicinal cannabis
I wonder if Mr Soros could solve a few basic problems such as: -
How to prevent drug users from becoming dependent?
How to regulate the degree of tolerance among users?
Who would decide when a drug user has become dependent and should be referred to treatment?
What penalties would be involved for breaking these controls?
How we could we test the quality and strength of synthetic drugs?
Would poly drug users be able to buy up a range of substances or would sales be restricted to only those who were dependent on them?
What if ice addicts wanted to purchase marijuana, ecstasy or cocaine?
If only addicts were allowed to buy legitimately, where will the ‘experimental’ and ‘occasional users’ obtain their drugs?
Most importantly what regulations would there be on the use of marijuana - a drug that is fat-soluble and is never actually eliminated from the body if taken on a regular basis i.e. once a week?
How could the sobriety of professional groups, drivers of public transport, employers in workplace regulations etc. be tested and how would they be enforced?
Fact versus opinion.
Everyone bases his opinion on the information given. If I wanted a legal opinion, I would ask a lawyer, if I wanted financial advice, I would ask an accountant. If I wanted an opinion about street drugs, I would ask an expert in the field. Until recently the information from Australian elite has been confusing and ambiguous. But thanks to the Internet* everyone can now verify the facts* about every aspect of the drug issue, particularly marijuana.
I believe that once the Australian community understand that cannabis, psychotropic pills and synthetic drugs are gaining in popularity with young people, and after being presented with the danger that these drugs present to their health and well-being many people will reconsider their position. However, if opinions are based on a particular ideology, then no amount of information, no matter how alarming will prompt them to revise their opinion.
The reasons for removing legal sanctions are not based on science and evidenced based research, but predicated on the belief that to prohibit the use of these drugs is an infringement on the rights of the individual. Not only that, but pro-drug activists insist that drug users are being persecuted and victimised, or as they farcically claim, ‘demonised’ and ‘stigmatised’ as criminals. They pontificate at great length about the rights of the drug users but show little regard for the rights of the rest of the community.
Marijuana is classified as an inherently dangerous, addictive and mind -altering substance. In other words when a person smokes a joint or tokes* a bong, they ingest chemicals that are similar to, and in many instances identical to those found in cigarettes. Users also undergo similar mind-altering experiences as someone who is drunk – state of cerebral dysfunction.
*Recently it has become difficult to find accurate and honest statistics and data on the Internet. Pro drug activists have a network of international elite with the same ideology as their own. They sound authoritative with impressively named foundations and institutions who will support even the most outlandish claims.
*Toking is commonly used for pulling/smoking a bong.
A Drug Epidemic
Unlike street drugs, alcohol and cigarettes are classified as cultural/social drugs, and are considered as endemic* in western society. However, The Cancer Council, with support and funding from Federal and State Governments introduced a continuous and vigorous campaign to discourage the use of tobacco as much as possible. There is also a concerted effort to curtail alcohol use and binge drinking among young people.
This is because smoking and binge drinking are recognised as serious health risks. Not only to the user, but also in the case of cigarettes, side stream smoke is considered to be detrimental to the health and well-being of the non-smokers. i.e. common good. Prevention strategies are proving to be most successful in reducing the number of smokers. But the fact that tobacco is a legal substance is probably the biggest obstacle health authorities have to overcome.
*An inevitable part of society.
On the other hand, street drugs, including marijuana, are illegal and the repetitive and widespread use of these drugs that we are experiencing at the moment is classified by the International Scientific Community as an epidemic. It is generally accepted that eventually ‘epidemics’ can be brought under control and often eradicated altogether, if correct policies are introduced.
A New Perspective
There was a time when the only people who used street drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana were artists and bohemians, and at that level the problem was easy for authorities to manage.
If authorities believe they will be able to curtail cigarette smoking and binge drinking there is absolutely no reason why the use of street drugs cannot also be controlled and contained. The biggest advantage we have in reducing the use of street drugs is to maintain their illegal status and avoid normalisation of their use.
The only reason this has not been achieved so far is because the policies and propaganda that have dominated the drug agenda since the 1970s were planned with the intention of inculcating i.e. normalising the use of street drugs in Australia. Obviously, the harmful effects of marijuana and other gateway drugs on the inexperienced and vulnerable drug users don’t appear to be a priority with the elite.
We already have a number of ‘feral communities’* in Australia and these provide us with a perfect example of how the endemic use of marijuana and other street drugs can demoralise and devastate an entire community. This is what will happen if street drugs become socially acceptable in Australia. Is this the future we envisage for future generations?
Because parents are the mediating structures in the social development of their children, I believe they have a right to expect an honest account of the risks that their children take if they use marijuana and other gateway drugs.
Pro drug activists assert that everyone has the right to use any drugs they choose. However, I believe that because parents devote their lives to their children their ‘rights’ have priority over the immature self-serving.
*The Nimbin community is an example of what is known as a ‘feral’ community
*Soros considers himself to be a ‘god’ and his vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty in favour of a progressive credo of rights and entitlements. As he has declared in an interview, “I am a god and the creator of everything “and when asked to reaffirm this statement he said
‘I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.”
UNDERMINING THE SYSTEM
When activists intend to undermine an existing system or structure, they create a blueprint and issue an agenda. For example,If the ultimate aim were to legalise drugs, they would not state their real objective up front, but introduce their ideas incrementally and strategically over a lengthy period of time.
Activists use recognisable and successful marketing techniques to persuade Australians that illegal drugs should be normalised. Firstly they attempt to pacify people’s natural apprehension about illegal drugs in the following ways
Design a Blueprint and Establish the pro drug Agenda
Manipulate the drug language and use words such as ‘safe’ injecting facilities, ‘recreational’ use and soft’ drug.
They have support from those who run systems of government i.e. bureaucrats.
Introduced the concept of legalisation through propaganda and distribution of public communications i.e. government literature and the media.
Over the years built up a ‘support base’ in schools through biased and ambiguous information in drug education classes to promote the pro drug agenda. e.g.
Fail to make a distinction between legal and illegal drugs.
Teach that drugs, both legal and illegal are an inevitable part of society.
Educate school children to believe that certain street drugs can be used ‘responsibly’.
Promoted the myth, particularly to social workers and drug counsellors, that only people with social or psychological problems become drug addicts although in fact most people become addicted to drugs because they have been caught up in the experience of drug taking at an early age.
Persuaded parents that ‘experimenting’ with drugs is quite normal for teenagers. I would never mention the link between experimentation, occasional use, moderate use, habitual use and addiction.
Made every effort to have marijuana ‘decriminalised’ with the aim of eventually having it legalised.
Hidden the fact that evidence about the potential health risks associated with marijuana has been available since the early 1980s
Suppressed or ignored information and the results of international research for as long as possible.
Understated the effects of marijuana and never mention that it is particularly dangerous if used by adolescents.
Made parents feel inadequate and guilty by citing their use of social drugs as a bad example and may even tell them it is the reason their child was using street drugs.
Disempowered police. Despite the fact that criminals are dealing drugs police are prohibited from being in areas close to Medically Supervised Injecting Facilities and Needle Exchange Centres
I appreciate the concern of many people who put forward an argument in favour of removing legal sanctions. However, I believe the logic used takes us a certain distance and then leaves us with a sense of indeterminacy and incompletion. Many of the proposals rely on frail generalisations and do not consider historical precedents and the experience of other countries. Nor has there been a correct analysis of the ‘contagion’ and ‘addiction’ factors or the collateral effects including later complications e.g. Hepatitis C – injecting drugs has now become the single most important factor for acquiring Hepatitis C, accounting for 80% of infections. They have also failed to understand the dynamics of the drug market. If drugs such as Mandrax or Lamotrigine which do not produce ‘pleasure’ were under discussion the thought of making them freely available would never be considered.
The United Nations Conventions on Drug Prohibition have been recommended and ratified again and again by the International Scientific Community since 1909. They were endorsed once again in April 2016 at a General Assembly Special Session on Drug Policy in New York.