|
In
the Foreword to The Cruel Hoax John Mckenzie states:
Elaine Walters . . . writes from positions of outrage
and concern for the young. A very apt description
of the style and tone of the book. As a document of
outrage, it is an excellent, emotive presentation
of anecdotal, rhetorical opinions coloured with floral
metaphors, e.g. Many young people . . . like ripened
fruit on the vine . . . will result in a bitter harvest.
Elaine
Walters says: The general public do [sic] not have
access to information about street drugs which is
necessary to form balanced opinions . . . yet, in
the chapter on Drug Education, in which she laudably
advocates open exchange of ideas and information among
students, she asserts: A drug education programme
should only use data approved by the United Nations
Commission on Narcotics (UNCN), the National Institute
of Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the World Health Organisation
(WHO). Does this mean Ms Walters refutes all other
research and published data available to the general
public, parents, teachers and students alike? Or is
she suggesting censorship of available data so that
people cannot make up their own minds? Or does it
mean she is not aware of the wealth of information
available? She does present a sizeable bibliography
at the end of her book so that answers the last question,
and some of the sources she refers to are quite obscure
papers, e.g. the results of a CAT Scan on the brains
of Rhesus Monkeys after long-term delta-9-THC treatment
presented in Chicago in 1981.
Her
references are sporadic and irrelevant; predictions
for the future not based on facts or trials or tests
but on opinions; presentations of opinions in a condescending,
patronising manner, e.g. The basic difference between
using alcohol `responsibly' and using marijuana `responsibly'
is that most people can have a drink or two to relax,
enhance their meal, be sociable and not become intoxicated
(drunk). But the sole purpose of smoking a joint,
a cone, a pipe, or a bong is to become intoxicated
(stoned).
Ms
Walters labels a NSW Drug and Alcohol Directorate
on Harm Minimisation confusing and pretentious poppycock.
How informative is such a label?
She
refutes the premise that legal sanctions are more
harmful than the drug itself by arguing that young
people in Australia are not being jailed for simple
possession and use of marijuana.
She
also believes that withheld information about drugs
is nothing short of scandalous . . . reminiscent of
the attempts to conceal the dangers associated with
cigarette smoking by tobacco companies.
Anyone
who states: In the late 1980s it was reported in the
scientific literature that heroin is genotoxic and
immuno-depressive . . . explains the vulnerability
of heroin addicts to all infections including AIDS
without discussing the issue of needles presents an
unscientific argument. In another passage about designer
drugs: an amount of 3-methyl-fentanyl as small as
the head of a pin can kill 50 people but no proof,
source of reference is attached.
Of
the 82 questions which are answered with opinions,
a paucity of references, hearsay and conflicting statements,
42 relate to marijuana specifically, 34 to drugs generally
and six concern all other drugs, yet the subtitle
of the book is Street Drugs in Australia.
Finally,
Elaine Walters suggests an advertising campaign: cliches
and 30 sec ads are the norm and messages like USERS
ARE LOSERS; DON'T BE A DOPE; DON'T BE A FOOL, BE COOL
will find acceptance.
Read
The Cruel Hoax if you want to be more confused than
ever about drug issues and/or murderously outraged.
|
