Reefer Madness sweeping OZ

[Al B. Fuct]

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW

 

NDARC is the government's 'outcome-based' research arm.

National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)

The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) was established at the University of New South Wales in May, 1986 and officially opened in November, 1987.

It is funded by the Australian Government as part of the National Drug Strategy (formerly, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse).

NDARC is situated on the University of New South Wales Randwick campus in the eastern suburbs of Sydney

Whenever govt needs to bash a drug for political gain, they run to NDARC to get the pseudoscience they need to make reasonable-looking claims in the press.

 

If NDARC is credited in a news story, you can be relatively certain it is the govt view, not the medical or scientific view. UNSW should not only be ashamed of themselves for whoring themselves out to the zero-tolerance brigade but for diminishing the reputation of an otherwise good university.

 

It's aptly named. NDARC keeps everyone NDARCness.

[Frazz]

Yea well i located this further report from ABC News which backs up the earlier report ... another stake driven into the heart of cannabis reform hopes ...

------------------

 

Cannabis linked to use of amphetamines

 

By Jane Cowan

 

Posted Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:00am AEST

Research: Those smoking cannabis at the age of 15 were as much as 15 times more likely to be using amphetamines in their early 20s (file photo).

 

Research: Those smoking cannabis at the age of 15 were as much as 15 times more likely to be using amphetamines in their early 20s .

 

 

Doctors have tracked 2,000 Victorian high school students for 10 years and found those who were smoking cannabis at the age of 15 were as much as 15 times more likely to be using amphetamines in their early 20s.

 

The work, to be published in the August edition of the journal Addiction also dispels the image of ice and speed users as young, wealthy party-goers.

 

"That's something which people have speculated on for decades and decades - that there was some progression in the way in which young people are introduced to drugs. You start with tobacco and alcohol, move to cannabis, once you feel comfortable with the former, once you feel comfortable with cannabis, you're more likely to move onto other drugs. And that's certainly the progression that we found with amphetamine use," one of the report's authors, Professor George Patton, said.

 

"So the message here is not that this was a group of sort of aspirant party-going young adults who didn't have a history of some other use. These amphetamine users look very much like our very heavy cannabis users, and those who are using other illicit drugs.

 

Professor Patton says there are a number of things we can learn from this research.

 

"One, I think we need to remain vigilant about drug use. We've seen tremendous rises in amphetamine use in a relatively short space of time, a lot more people using. If they were to move on and young people were to be using amphetamines more frequently, then that would be a major problem," he said.

 

"But, look, I think the message is that use of drugs to excess, misuse of drugs, is something which really begins back in the teens. That's where we need to have a major focus."

 

Professor Patton says the research also does away with the idea of harmless experimentation and soft drugs.

 

"Well, yeah. Even experimentation at a young age is a problem," he said.

 

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/18/...ction=australia

 

[WantDaChronic]

You start with tobacco and alcohol, move to cannabis, once you feel comfortable with the former, once you feel comfortable with cannabis, you're more likely to move onto other drugs. And that's certainly the progression that we found with amphetamine use," one of the report's authors, Professor George Patton, said.

so why not ban alcohol and tobacco and nip the problem in the butt?

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

I think "reefer madness" is an exacting expression of what this country is experiencing.

 

I think we need a very public face..I think f anyone can get someone like chanel 31 to allow them to host an adult,conservative chat show with guest experts each week like ex-cops that have the credability to denounce these issues,people like prof wayne hall,who believes strongly in pot as medicine, peopleto give personal testimony of never having used hard drugs...

 

I think until we can get a very public,very in their face constant display of evidence, the way the "new world", Australia included...things will only get worse,until the bad times we're having will be remmembered as the "good old days".

 

rob

[Al B. Fuct]

Rob, are you putting your hand up to be that 'very public face'?

 

Can't be me. I can do some kinds of activism but being the public face of a cannabis legalisation movement ain't one of them. I'm good for letters and whatnot, but I'm not going to get myself Katelaris-ed. D'ya like the madman photo of Kazza the SMH used? Clearly, the man's on drugs...

[67Special]

You'd probably have to lose the bag Rob else they'd be tagging you as a terrorist

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

Sorry mate, I'm just not photogenic (polite speak for ugly as a hat full of arse-holes ). Serious, I would be a set back for the cause. As fucked up as it is,we needs ome-one who looks good (at least presentable), it's the stupid world we live in. I've heard people comment on matters spoken of on TV, with rhetoric like "that bitch, how could she know anything with a lisp like that? or whatever. With so much weighing on it, IF such a front face could be made, it would have to be decent.

 

I'd do it, gladly. I've no record, the amount I grow and use is so small these days it's ridiculous, and I have years of recorded medical history which would make a pretty decent medical defence.

I'm white, a do gooder(volunteer with youth work and homeless), a christian (I've been a preacher), a number of kids, all with decent jobs and no police trouble. Likewise my wife has no police record and soforth.

 

I feel my position is one that could do it, but just too dog ugly. I'd go without growingfor the time needed to makes ome impact,a couple years of scraping by with gear,for the overall outcome,I'm sure many would sacrafice their right to smoke as much as they pleased for what could be gained. I've had to go a couple years now with only this present crop, I could do it again. But as Isiad, I'm not the person to do it.

 

But I believe it could work, we get no say. No matter what people group itis that's being supressed, if they have no public representation, it will go on and on and on..We're the imagination of people's minds. When someone speaks ill of dope, whatever the individual imagination of each mindless minion who listens dreams up...is who we are. At least to them. Unbathed, uncoothe, troublesome, theives, depraved, jobless, a drain to society...all these images can only be dispelled if there's a face that people focus on when the subject comes up.

 

Take years of South Afraican struggle against aparthied, we hear about clashes between white police forces and black ortestors, and we have the scene lives in a unique way for each and every mind that hears of it. A racist, they picture filthy blacks that need a strong whote hand to help them live decent lives. Unacreing people see faceless mobs, numbers, nothing more..throw in Nelson Mandella, a likeable, soft spoken, apparently gentle man, and we have a focus every time we hear of something happening against the blacks, we see it happening to Nelson Mandella.

 

So long as we have no face, we're non-exsitent, except as a problem, a problem that the gov is doing all they can for, because there's no-body to say otherwise.

 

 

Even Sinn Feigh , full blooded militia, some would say (rightly or wrongly) terrorists in the real sense of the word. All the bombs and cafe arguements, right thinking, and righteousness in the world counted for nothing until Jerry Adams spoke up public and presented their case.

 

We need a person who society can't point at and detract as being anything too bad, they needn't be anything flash, just "normal" in the eyes of society.

 

I wonder if channel 31 would have the show on.I wonder ifanyone knew what they were doing, if there might even be a grant that could be gained for the production of the show? I have no idea. But I do believe there are people that would appear,people that would be accepted by the public asgood decent people. ex police, wayne hall, dr. Katerlaris...there's more, we all know there's more. There'dprobably be a whole host of university types that would speak on our side. LAwyers and exjudges perhaps.

 

I just think we need public identity, a face that people can connect 10 years in jail with. You know, afamily person,who has not harmeds ociety,a face and personality that would arrouse emotions in the general public. instead of leaving who we are to the individual imaginations of all who hear and by their silence empower the laws against us.

 

Anyway, rant rant rant...

 

I thik it's work but.

 

cheers

rob