If further evidence were needed that Fairfax has made its own trouble by hiring a newsroom that writes solely for its mates, have a look at the Sunday Sun-Herald’s coverage of an effort to ban body-building stimulant, DMAA, used by (ick!) weightlifters and (double-ick!) miners which included both a news story and a lead editorial in the weekend paper:
There should be nothing wrong with young men working hard on their fitness. They spend hours in the gym improving their physique and decidedly avoiding the great Australian epidemic, obesity.
But there are worrying aspects to what for some young men has become an obsessive desire to achieve a powerful, muscular body shape…
Theirs is a legitimate, if fairly marginal, sport.
That health authorities regard DMAA on the same level as heroin, cocaine and crystal meth must suggest to users it’s a drug that should be avoided.
And so on and so forth in that vein. Yet just a few months ago, in late May and early June, the Herald was all but leading a campaign to legalise, or at least “start a conversation” on legalising, other drugs.
At the time the paper gave loads of space to the likes of former NSW Department of Public Prosecutions chief-turned-legalisation campaigner Nick Cowdery and also heavily promoted the Australia21 campaign to end drug prohibition. The Herald did not go quite so far as to nail its colours to the mast of legalisation, but with a nod and wink editorialised that “change is not impossible”.
Now given a choice, the Prick is against bans of all stripes and sees the law as a blunt and ineffective weapon against bad behaviour, at least as it is defined by the moral middle classes. But if, as one can reasonably make the case, the so-called War on Drugs has been an incalculable human disaster from go to whoa, how can one then turn around and say a bunch of weightlifters should be denied their particular poison?
Surely there can’t be that much of a difference between the hip users of prohibited substances inner-city journos may be sympathetic to on the one hand and body-building stimulant-loving proles they turn their noses up at on the other. Can there?
Prick With A Fork 
I’m 54 and have been throwing weights around in the gym for the last two years, mainly as a means of controlling my blood sugar after having been diagnosed as a diabetic. I’ve lost over 20kg, am getting pretty strong for an old bloke, and the diabetes is under good control. I like lifting weights and hate cardio – ever seen a happy looking runner? DMAA is often in pre-workout supplements, and as a stimulant it works well to give you focus and an helpful physical application to the task at hand.
Anyway, I still like a good drop of red with a nice meal, and generally drink high quality rum rather than malt these days (Ron Zacapa is worth trying for those interested). From time to time, usually in a situation of mutual bad influence, somewhat more is consumed than is prudent. The main problem with this is that those special bottles will often get opened far too late in the evening to be properly appreciated. The other problem is the inevitable hangover.
Through trial and error — having to go to the gym in the morning and having a stiff pre-workout supplement to help face dead lifts –I have found that a DMAA is one of the most effective hangover cures I have tried.
As I understand it, it is banned in those sports that do drug testing. Fair enough, as it is likely to be performance enhancing. No reason for an overall ban, though.
But if, as one can reasonably make the case, the so-called War on Drugs has been an incalculable human disaster from go to whoa, how can one then turn around and say a bunch of weightlifters should be denied their particular poison?
Um . . . because they’re not advocating the criminalisation of DMAA, they’re merely highlighting their view that it is a harmful drug?
Which, incidentally, is entirely consistent with Fairfax’s general position on decriminalisation, i.e. that drugs are bad but criminalising their posession and use is a counter-productive way to address the problem.
Was this seriously not clear to you from reading the articles?
So if DMAA is banned it would be a criminal offence possessing, selling or manufacturing it, right? Similar to cocaine, heroin and crystal meth. Then according to your logic cocaine, heroin and crystal meth isn’t criminalised drugs but merely drugs whose harmfulness has been highlighted.
Once DMAA is banned it by implication becomes an illegal substance – as is cocaine etc – thus criminalised. I find it difficult to separate a banned substance from an illegal substance.
Anyway if they want to ‘ban’ this ‘drug’ then why not alcohol too? God knows more people die, get killed, maimed, stabbed, assaulted, crippled, enslaved and destroyed by this insidious substance than DMAA in all its existence. This bloody relativism with which the State operates is insufferable.
This is what happens when bored scientists are compelled to justify their research grants. They conjure up BS.
Then according to your logic cocaine, heroin and crystal meth isn’t criminalised drugs but merely drugs whose harmfulness has been highlighted.
No. I am merely pointing out that Fairfax’s general position on decriminalisation of harmful drugs is in no way inconsistent with it’s reporting around DMAA. It’s not even vaguely accurate to characterise the decriminalisation argument as advocating for an end to drug prohibition or as a general denial that drug use is harmful.
The silly “gotcha” that the author of this website seems to think they’ve identified against the Fairfax media is, in reality, completely invalid.
Can there? Yes there can! The Herald and the rest of the Greens cheer squad continually fudge this issue while calling for open debate and “reform.” Former Fairfax journo (and Annandale resident) Lisa Pryor’s recent “little” book on the subject was typical of our hypocrisy and confusion. It completely ignored the issue of supply (bikies, Mexican warlords), skimmed over harmful drugs like Ice and heroin, suggested it was all about “information” and education, then blatantly suggested that “we” (educated intelligent people) should be allowed to enjoy the drugs of our choice (all the so-called softies) without the hassle of having our Annandale dinner party interrupted by the drug squad smashing our door down…
Mr PWAF, the very obvious class bias you highlight is one thing, but hardly the main issue.
What IS next? Perhaps you are right, the hopeless situation we have got ourselves over drugs in CAN only be sorted by a free market. While there is demand for anything, someone will supply it, legally or not. Having just (finally! ) got into The Wire, I kinda agree… nothing should be banned – it’s really the only option we have left.
But I do wonder if any of us would want to live in that world.
Dont’s and won’t. And heaven help anyone who tries to make me.
Thanks for the laugh.
Some facts on this supp BTW…
ASADA bans its use “in competition” but has allowed it in the past “out of competition”. What that means in real terms is the 24 hr of the comp youre not allowed to use it.
Shows the silliness of the ban. For a body builder for example, the need for a “stimulant” to help she’d body fat is a need manifested in the months and months prior to getting on stage. Allowed.
Yet on the day when having a stimulant in your system makes next to zero difference…Banned
Nuts.
I bet the people at Fairfax are also against giving medications to people with disorders like ADHD under the guise that they are simply being given illicit drugs. Yet they want to give drugs to people with life threatening addictions.
Hangover cure? Fantastic! Do they sell it by the gallon?
Reliance on ” recreational” drug use is an admission that you and your friends are too boring to be with straight.