Welcome to 2009, it had to happen some day.
After the excess of the Christmas and New Year festivities, it was almost a pleasure to return to work on January 2nd, to turn on my office computer and download the pile of e-mails awaiting my attention. Amongst which were several from “Daily Dose“, a newsfeed digest service of drug related stories which usually marks the start of a new day. First to be opened was the one for that day.
My eye was drawn to a story from Australia in the apparently highly regarded newspaper “The Australian” headed “Powers granted to target heroin“. I say “apparently” because of course, living this side of the globe it isn’t a publication we hear much about. The story seemed to be yet another report of a drug war crack-down and so, with the thought of “oh no, not again”, I followed the link.
As I read away, something didn’t seem right. This was January 2nd remember, two days into 2009 and yet the report stated
Just two weeks into the new year, business and consumer affairs minister Wal Fife advised cabinet the government was losing its battle against drugs, with the nation suffering a “serious drug abuse problem”.
A misprint surely? Two days maybe, but two weeks? I read on to discover that
“Despite extensive initiatives already taken in an effort to contain the illicit drug traffic, the problem continues to expand at a significant rate,” he wrote in a submission dated January 11.
Now, I know Australia is ahead of us in the timezone stakes, but not by a whole 9 days. How come this highly respected newspaper was reporting on something that hadn’t happened yet? Indeed, something that wasn’t going to happen for well over a week.
So I popped off an e-mail to their contact address and left it at that – well, ok I actually posted it around a few forums to see if anyone could discover what was going on. The explanation seemed to be that The Australian had jumped the gun a bit on printing a press release before the embargo date, another example of lazy journalism?
Early afternoon and the answer arrives in my in-box from the newspaper. This, in fact, wasn’t a news report as such, but rather a report on something the Australian government had done in secret 30 years ago, only now released under their 30 year rule. You’d never guess it from looking at the website report which looks like any other news report, but in fact this was one of several reports on secret papers released after 30 years.
In other words, this news story had happened in 1978
Actually, one forum reply did notice something about the grammar used, and I quote jcpren of the Society for all British Road Enthusiasts writing after I’d discovered the truth and told everyone:
There are some clues in the grammar of the article. The pluperfect tense is used in “Similar laws had been in place in the US for seven years”, and, several times, the preterite tense is used where a current news article would more naturally use the present perfect tense (e.g. it reads “New powers…were approved” instead of “New powers…have been approved”).
Silly me, I should have noticed. He did go on to admit though
However, I have to admit that these differences don’t really jump out at you if you’re not looking for them. I certainly didn’t spot what was going on before you told us.
In truth it comes down to bad website design by “The Australian”, there’s nothing on that page to say what the article is actually about and nothing to put it into context for people arriving at the page directly.
From a drug policy point of view though it’s interesting for another reason. here we have a quite draconian change in the law introduced in secret. If you haven’t read the report:
The minister proposed tightening law enforcement powers to ensure the kingpins of drug smuggling rings did not escape prosecution. Legal technicalities meant officers were unable to use their normal powers of questioning and arrest in relation to conspiracy offences.
Mr Fife also urged cabinet to create new powers so officers could offer informants immunity from prosecution. Similar laws had been in place in the US for seven years.
Cabinet-approved new powers to seize money and property gained from illegal drug trafficking were needed.
For the first time, cabinet also approved powers for Customs officers to order internal body searches by doctors of suspected drug smugglers.
Typical drug-war stuff, introduced in secret in an effort to stem the rising importation. The interesting thing is of course, being 30 years ago we can see what happened as a result in terms of fighting heroin importation and use in Australia; just how successful were these measures in cutting the supply of heroin? The answer is of course, not very effective at all and heroin use continued to rise in Australia.
A report from Office of Drug Policy, The Cabinet Office, New South Wales in november 2002 entitled “HEROIN: AN ASSESSMENT CURRENT SITUATION, TRENDS, AND POTENTIAL RISKS FOR AUSTRALIA AND NSW” (read it here – PDF doc) stated
During the 1980s and 1990s research suggested the numbers of heroin dependent users in Australia rose from around 34,000 in the mid 1980s to about 74,000 estimated in 1997, when the last major study was conducted.
Mark up another failure for the drug war, albeit one they kept quiet about.
So 2009 gets off to an interesting start. Do have a happy new year best you can and tin hats on, be ready for a bumpy ride.
