The truth will set you free, Lance?

Lance Armstrong is right that the truth will set you free, but what will it free him of?

No more money

First, it should free him of his money. All of it. We have a range of laws that require people to be recompensed for wrongs done against them and the list of those who have been wronged by Armstrong is very, very long.

As he is an American, those who have been wronged won't be bashful in suing him to get their rightful money back. By the time it is all finished, there shouldn't be any money left of his fraudulent wealth. 

Trust and relationships

The truth also sets him free of any trust he has in most of his close personal relationships. His children and family will never trust him.

It won't matter what he does or says or how long he does it for, that trust will never return.

Many of those relationships are gone forever. They will never return. He is free of them. 

Lance as you knew him is gone

Lance, you are still delusional if you think people will forgive you. If you want the truth to set you free, you need to let go of the entire lie that your life has been. 

That means not expecting anyone to forgive you. It means going to jail. It means accepting that you are not who you thought you were, and tried to show other people you were.

This really would set you free. If you leave the old fake person behind. 

It won't happen.

My bet is that most of this won't  happen. Lance won't tell the whole truth. Lance won't own up to his deceit to himself. Lance will keep trying to spin a story. Lance will never be set free. 

But I do hope he goes to jail. We need justice in our world for the rest of us to retain our trust. 

Let me know what you think?

Mark S

Finally, even News Ltd concedes drug laws need to change

When a popular commentator such as Eddie McGuire calls for change to drug laws in a News Ltd tabloid like the Sunday Herald Sun, you know that public opinion is shifting.

McGuire's article:"Time for national debate on evil drug trade" is a major shift for a News Ltd paper.

Yes, it is time for Australia to seriously look at decriminalising drugs

As readers of this blog will know, I've consistently advocated decriminalisation and regulation of drugs.  The first article on this topic "It's time for a national debate on drug laws - decriminalise and regulate" said many of the same things as McGuire.

I'll repeat it again. Let's regulate, tax and manage.

The more recent article "Challenge the narcotics convention" discussed a very practical issue that our lawmakers will need to face to move down this path.

Who will take the lead?

So, now that we have the conservative tabloid contemplating change, will we see anyone from the Liberals supporting these calls? Given the Baillieu government's tough on crime stance, it still looks like the Victorian government is calling the shots from the old fashioned anti-drugs, anti-crime playbook.  Maybe, a kingmaker like McGuire can influence from the inside.  Working for James Packer as he does, he certainly has the connections, and I'd encourage him to have those quiet conversations that are so necessary to make political change happen.

On the Labor side, the social conservatives who still make up so many of the supporters are reluctant to head down this path either.  With Prime Minister Gillard under fire from multiple directions, it's highly unlikely she would be willing to take this issue on right now.

And the Greens have also been reluctant.  While their constituents are most likely to support a different drugs policy, the leadership hasn't wanted to be seen as a bunch of hippie pot smokers.  Again, from a pragmatic perspective, it's understandable, but with recent disappointing poll results for the Greens, I hope they can be encouraged to take more courageous action on socially progressive issues like drugs.  Especially now they can see that drug legalisation is becoming more of a mainstream view.

We will benefit by changing our approach

As Eddie points out, if we choose to spend money on "rehabilitation, advertising and teaching", society will end up millions (or up to $5 billion) in front of where we are now.  Thank you Eddie for bringing this thinking to the Sunday Herald Sun readers.  We need them on board to make these changes happen.

Let's keep discussing drug law reform sensibly.  We will get there.  We will benefit once we do.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S

Challenge the Narcotics convention

Richard Branson is in favor of drug law reform

I don't much like tattoos and men wearing their undies above their jeans. Other people dislike grunge, heavy metal and the Kardashians. All of these offences against taste are personal choices, with no impact on others. There have been suggestions that each should be banned or restricted, but such claims are regarded as frivolous.

There are many personal choices with no impact on others that are restricted or prohibited

Although those examples of behavior are allowed, almost every society restricts some behavior that is a personal choice. In every case, it is argued that allowing the behavior is harmful to society. Generally, it's a false claim. Blasphemy, homosexuality and topless bathing are all examples that have been banned in Australia and are still banned in some parts of the world.

Alcohol, gambling and drugs are other examples. Each has positive and negative consequences for the user, and yes, when misused, they have negative consequences for society. Yet drugs are prohibited while gambling and alcohol are not.

Prohibition does not work

Prohibition of alcohol failed terribly in the 1920s
Prohibition of gambling in Australia failed
Prohibition of drugs has failed

Like many countries, Australia is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) which covers drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects.  As a result, we are bound to abide by its restrictive principles.  Perhaps the Convention was appropriate 50 years ago.  It is no longer the right approach.

Australia should cease being a signatory to the Single Convention

A new approach to drugs is required in the 21st century.  For Australia to have the flexibility to pursue such an approach, we can longer be bound by the Single Convention. We have shown that by legalising gambling, and regulating it; by legalising alcohol and regulating it; by legalising tobacco and regulating it - that our society benefits.

We should take the same approach to drugs with morphine-like, cocaine-like, and cannabis-like effects, as well as other psychotropic drugs.

I would like to see a new approach to drug management globally.  The place to start is to dismantle the existing structures as they are causing more harm than good.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Talk to the consumer in their language

Some public officials have a bad habit of following old fashioned traditions rather than considering what they are trying to achieve.  We deserve the best.

There's no place to hide behind legalese

The best public campaigns focus on achieving an objective,  the worst are bureaucratic and legalistic.  Take this sign, from my neighbourhood. With wording like this it's no wonder it's been covered with graffiti!

Projectiles thrown at trams may cause serious injury or death to occupants.  Offenders will be prosecuted.

Real campaigns must talk in the language of those we are trying to influence

Two of the most successful public campaigns in Australian history have been the Grim Reaper campaign of the 1980s, and the Victorian TAC (Transport Accident Commission) campaigns since 1989.  In particular, the phrase: "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot" has become a part of the Australian vernacular.

These campaigns were highly controversial at the time, as they were graphic, dramatic, and unlike anything before.  Yet, they both worked - Australia successfully dodged the AIDS bullet, and dramatically reduced the road toll.  An important part of their success was the way that their language was direct - not at all inhibited by legalese.

More recently, a series of ads to educate young men about alcohol fuelled violence have used the device of "championship moves".  Again, these ads use language and visuals that are consistent with the way young men act and speak. Likewise, the Save-a-Mate program talks to young people about drugs in a way that is realistic.

Stop with the bureaucracy and legal threats

Thankfully, most public officials are less bureaucratic than my local signage.  This New York example of a campaign against train surfing is direct, and doesn't mention one word of prosecution. In reality, the people that public service announcements are trying to talk to don't take much notice of legal sanctions.  But, like the Grim Reaper, TAC and drugs campaigns,  disincentives are those that affect them personally, like death, or social embarrassment.

We have no reason to use complex, legal language in communicating with our audience.  Let's be honest, and direct.  Everyone will benefit.

Let me know what you think.

It's time for a national debate on drug laws - decriminalise and regulate

According to 2009 calculations, the war on drugs in Australia costs $4.7bn. That's slightly more than the entire compensation package for the carbon tax. The debates about drug laws have been topical for decades, and it's time we looked closely at them again. The current system isn't working, and it's illogical.

If we want to minimise harm, shouldn't we prohibit the most harmful drugs? Probably not.

The argument for prohibition centres on the harm caused by drugs.  If this really was the reason, then the drugs that are prohibited should be the ones that are the most harmful.  Unfortunately, this isn't what happens.  A paper published in the Lancet in 2007 by Professor David Nutt from the University of Bristol showed that the drugs that are most harmful are not the ones that are prohibited.

The following chart shows 20 substances ranked by harm, as assessed by a nine category matrix of harm and expert assessment. I have added the two orange bars to divide the drugs into three equal categories.

As you can see from their findings, the banned drugs cover the most harmful such as heroin and cocaine to the least harmful such as ecstasy.  It also shows that our most popular legal drug, alcohol, is in the most harmful category - even worse than tobacco.

So, if we want to ban the most harmful drugs, we should ban alcohol.  Of course, that was tried in the 1920s and led to catastrophic crime in the US.  It was a trial that failed.

What's the next alternative? Should everything be legal? Maybe.

There are many proponents of the legalisation approach, including many countries.   Robbie Swan's article in the Canberra Times this week explained that the results have been overwhelmingly positive.

Calls for legalisation have come from a range of respected sources such as doctors.  GP, Wendell Rosevear was quoted at the Australia 2020 summit saying "I want to give drug addicts choices and I want to legalise all drugs in Australia."

There is a better alternative - regulate and tax.

In between these options of prohibition/enforcement and legalisation, there is another option.  We can regulate, tax and manage.

Those who are in favor of small government oppose regulation on principle.  I'm not one of those.  Well regulated industries are commonplace in Australia, and they generally work well.  Our pharmaceutical industry is carefully regulated.  Why shouldn't the recreational drug industry be the same.

I won't try to suggest the best methods of regulating drugs - but I support Robbie Swan's perspective in the Canberra Times article:

Over the past few decades the use of all recreational drugs has been on the increase except one tobacco. Cigarette smoking is the only recreational drug use that is in decline and that is because governments have control over the product including its packaging, point of sale, price and, most importantly, public health and education campaigns.

Let's start this debate.  Let's make it sensible, and logical.  Rather than prohibiting a randomly chosen set of substances, let's regulate all recreational drugs for the benefit of all.

Let me know what you think

Mark S


Correction: The article originally stated that "The most notable of these is Portugal, which legalised personal possession of drugs in 2001." Portugal decriminalised drugs, they did not legalise them.

Safe injecting rooms - a necessary step towards harm minimization

Drugs is an emotional issue. At one extreme are those who argue for a zero tolerance approach. At the other extreme are those who argue for legalization of all drugs. In between - where most people can agree - is the need to minimize harm.

When it comes to minimizing harm from heroin use, safe injecting rooms are a proven solution.

Research findings now show the value of safe injecting rooms

In Sydney, Vancouver, Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany, safe injecting rooms have been a success.

Insite in Vancouver

Results from Vancouver showed:

• Decreased public injection
• Reduced dangerous syringe sharing
• Reduced HIV risk behaviour
• Reduction in publicly discarded syringes
• Increase in addicts seeking treatment and detox
• Reduction in measures of public disorder
• Less bacterial infections such as cellulitis and endocarditis

A major cross-national study by Australian and Dutch universities showed that:

Findings ... have been encouraging. In some areas public nuisance has been minimized, the number of overdose deaths and complications from non-fatal overdoses have decreased, BBV risk behaviour has decreased and health and social functioning of clients have improved.

The Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre has also published statistics over its decade of operation that confirms the value of the facility:

• 3,500 overdoses managed without a single fatality
• Publicly discarded needles and syringes has halved
• 80% reduction in ambulance call outs to Kings Cross
• More than 8,500 referrals to health and social welfare services.

The Australian and Dutch study identified a range of measures that should be adopted to minimise harm from heroin use.  They concluded:

The trial of supervised injecting centres in Australia represents just one new intervention within a much broader existing harm reduction framework. Additional and complementary interventions may include the distribution of naloxone to drug users, low threshold methadone, needle and syringe exchange in prison, pre-release methadone programmes for prisoners, the facilitation of IDUs to move to non-injecting routes of drug use and the expansion of opioid pharmacotherapies. 

So with so much evidence, why is there opposition to safe injecting rooms?

Based on the facts, politicians, lawyers, health professionals, police, and even church leaders support at least a trial of safe injecting rooms. (Read more from The Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform)

So why is the Sydney facility the only one in Australia?

Perhaps it is because the only political party to treat drug issues as a core policy is the Australian Sex Party. 

A key Sex Party's policy is to Legalise and increase the number of medically supervised injecting rooms.  

Given all the evidence, this just seems so sensible.


So, who would oppose harm minimisation and safe injecting rooms?

The FCV doesnt' represent
the views of learned churchmen
such as Rev Harry Herbert

Well, at present, there are two main opponents - the Family Council of Victoria and the Victorian Liberal Government.

The FCV is a collection of anti-abortion, anti-drug, radical Christian groups. They do not represent the mainstream view of the churches in Australia. In fact, the Sydney injecting room is run by UnitingCare, and headed by the Reverend Harry Herbert.

So, the Victorian Liberal government is choosing to align with a radical group of Christians, who don't represent the majority of churchgoers, so that Ted Baillieu can say: "We haven't supported injecting rooms, we won't support injecting rooms"

It just doesn't make sense.

Harm minimisation should be a core focus of any public policy.  Safe injecting rooms are critical to minimise harm for drug use and should be introduced without delay.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Baillieu is taking Victoria back to 1875 - truly Victorian - truly fucking outrageous

Please be advised that this blog contains swear words (like the one in the title).  Small children and Mr Baillieu are advised to please not read it.

Baillieu as a 19th century Victorian: it looks like the
Sex Party Vic election video had it spot on

With a one seat majority on the floor of the Victorian Parliament, wouldn't you think that Premier Ted Baillieu would want to govern for all. Instead, he is leading the most dramatic charge towards social conservatism this State has seen for a very long time.

He says it's about law and order.  Let's take a look at Baillieu's own rap sheet after only 6 months in office.

Rejection of safe injecting rooms

Despite overwhelming evidence of the value of safe injecting rooms, and the support of the local community in Richmond, Ted Baillieu said "We haven't supported injecting rooms, we won't support injecting rooms, and I don't support the normalisation of any of this sort of behaviour."

It is clear that his focus isn't on law and order with a decision like that.  In fact, law and order is much better served by having a safe injecting room. Mayor of Yarra, Alison Clarke and Councillor Stephen Jolly understand their community.

Cr Jolly said "We can't just put our head in the sand and close our eyes to harm minimisation approaches. It's not good enough."

Well, Ted Baillieu is happy to act like an ostrich on that one.


Passing discriminatory laws

Only yesterday, I wrote about the Victorian Equal Opportunity Amendment Bill 2011 that allows churches and other faith-based groups including religious schools to discriminate.  They don't have to justify discrimination as an inherent requirement on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, marital status, parental status or gender identity.


It was yesterday's blog, so I won't repeat it, but you can access it here.

This Bill certainly has nothing to do with law and order, and everything to do with very outdated social policies, particularly those associated with the old fashioned church.  Ted's upbringing at the Anglican Melbourne Grammar has obviously influenced him.  According to the school's own website, its second Headmaster, Edward Morris chose the motto "Pray and Work" in 1875, and supported the principle that education and religion go hand in hand.

Thanks to Mr Morris, we are now able to date Ted Baillieu's philosophy to 1875.


On the spot fines for swearing. 

Fucking hell, of the three examples this is the most absolutely outrageous. The Attorney-General Robert Clark and Ted Baillieu seem quite proud of their $240 on the spot fines for “Uses profane indecent or obscene language or insulting words”.

When this trial was introduced in 2009/10, there was a 67% increase in offences.  Well, fuck me, if that isn't just a $1.34 million money grab.

88% of offences were males aged 18-59, and since most of the offences were on the street, it's clear that young males will be the most targeted, as they are the ones out having a good time.

Even the director of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival is taking a wait and see approach.  As comedian Will Anderson tweeted, "Suddenly my show is going to cost me a lot more next year."  Can you really imagine the MICF without a decent smattering of fuck and cunt - some of which is directed at the audience!! "I'm sorry Rich Hall, but that's profane and indecent - Officer, please hit him up for $240"

Tim Minchin sings "Fuck the Poor" at the MICF gala

In India, Toronto, Jerusalem, and New Zealand, and other locations around the world this decision has been reported and is turning Victoria into a laughing stock.  What, those nice Australians who swear all the time, and even launch major tourism campaigns with "Bugger"...!!


Stop fucking up Melbourne - we are proud of who we are

Melbourne is one of the most vibrant and interesting cities in the world. We are a city of culture, edginess and spirit. This is one of the most livable cities on the planet.

Ted Baillieu doesn't trust the good people of this State to create and maintain an outstanding society that is envied by the world. He wants to impose nanny state restrictions and 19th century morals.


Wake up We've moved on to the 21st century because what we have built for ourselves is better than some nostalgic view of the time of Queen Victoria.

Let me know what you think

Mark S