Does the Tobacco Products Control Act ban Pick 'n Pay sponsoring Sax Appeal?

The Tobacco Products Control Act of 1993 (ActsOnline) is a poorly drafted piece of legislation with some curious unintended consequences. Pick 'n Pay is a tobacco retailer, as is each and every retailer in the country - from Makro, to Shoprite to every corner shop. Retailers are banned from doing ANYTHING at all. Sound exaggerated? The actual wording of the section dealing with the restriction on tobacco retailers reads:

s3. Advertising, sponsorship, promotion, distribution, display and information required in respect of packaging and labelling of tobacco products 

ss1) Contains a total ban on all forms of direct and indirect tobacco advertising.

ss2)  No manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer of tobacco products (Read Pick 'n Pay) shall-

a)     organise or promote any organised activity that is to take place in whole or in part in the Republic;

b)      make any financial contribution to any organised activity that is to take place, or is taking place, or has taken place in whole or in part in the Republic;

c)     make any financial contribution to any person in respect of-

i)      the organisation or promotion of any organised activity in the Republic by that person;

ii)     the participation, by that person, in any organised activity that is to take place, or is taking place in whole or in part, in the Republic.

ss3) A manufacturer or importer of a tobacco product may make a charitable financial contribution or sponsorship, provided that such contribution or sponsorship is not for the purpose of advertisement.

ss5) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1), (2) and (3), the Minister may prescribe exemptions for unintended consequences or the phasing out of existing sponsorship or contractual obligations.

ss11)This section must not be construed as limiting, amending, repealing or otherwise altering any legal obligation or liability in terms of any other law to warn consumers of the risks of using a tobacco product which a manufacturer, importer or retailer is bound by.

 

The restrictions placed on manufacturer, importers, distributors extended to retailers of tobacco products.The restricted parties are restricted from organising ANY ORGANISED ACTIVITY anywhere in the country. The restrictions furthermore include making any financial contribution to any organised activity within the country. Pick 'n Pay's sponsorship of SHAWCO and Sax Appeal is technically illegal. Further compounding the problem is that ss3 makes provision for manufacturers or importers of tobacco products to make charitable contributions. If the legislators wanted to exempt retailers they would have done it here, but they didn't. To have such a broad ban on doing anything at all is hard to understand and would appear to be unconstitutional. It would seem ridiculous that the tobacco law could override freedom of association required for an event such as the Cape Argus Pick 'n Pay cycle tour or the corner cafe sponsoring a soccer team with kit to wear. 

The Minister may prescribe exemptions "for unintended consequences" in terms of ss5). Sections allowing the minister to fix the unintended consequences of legislation are extremely unusual as it essentially transfers the legislative power to a single minister. That is what the law says. Of course there will be a million excuses and umming and ahhing, but if you read the law, that is what it says.

Total ban of all alcohol advertising proposed.

This story is a few months old now, but when a version of the Control of Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages Bill was leaked to the public two months ago it became apparent the Minister of Health was serious when he said the gloves were coming off.

The draft bill seeks to:

• totally prohibit the advertising of alcoholic products;
• permit only notices, which must be limited to "describing the price, brand name, type, strength, origin and composition of the product", to be displayed inside licensed and registered premises. Notices must be accompanied by a health warning and must not be visible from the outside;
• prohibit the display of names and logos of alcoholic beverages on delivery vehicles;
• prohibit the linking of sports sponsorship to alcoholic brand names; and
• prohibit the promotion of alcoholic beverages through donations and discounts at events.
 

The ban would cost the SABC about R400-million;
DStv and e.tv would lose R500-million;
Radio, lifestyle magazines and newspapers would lose R900-million;
Loss in VAT of about R280-million;
The ban would lead to a short-term drop in branded liquor consumption of 5% to 8%.

 
Dr Motsoaledi's spokesman, Fidel Hadebe, said on Friday he would not comment on the contents of the draft bill and to what extent it constituted the minister's final opinion. Mr Hadebe has confirmed on several occasions since December last year that a draft bill was ready to be processed. The alcoholic beverage industry, media industry and sports bodies have expressed dismay at the effect a total ban on advertising would have. A recent study by marketing analyst Chris Moerdyk found the media industry stood to lose R2bn in revenue if alcohol advertising were to be banned - which amounted to about 2500 job losses. The SABC, in a report to Parliament's portfolio committee on communications, recently said it would lose R400m a year in revenue if there were a ban. Mr Moerdyk estimated the value of sports sponsorships by the liquor industry at about R600m.

South African Breweries (SAB) sponsored the national soccer team, Bafana Bafana; a regional soccer development league; the Proteas Test and one-day international cricket teams; the Tri-Nations rugby tournament; the Springboks; and the Dusi and Fish River canoe marathons, SAB spokesman Benedict Maaga said on Friday. Due to contractual obligations, SAB could not disclose the value of its sponsorships, he said. If the company was not allowed to display its brand at sports events, it "would not be in a position to continue sponsoring sports or other events in SA", he said. South African Rugby Union (Saru) spokesman Andy Colquhoun said sponsorships were worth R247m to the union last year. SAB sponsored the Castle Rugby Championship (Castle Tri-Nations) and the Springboks' incoming and outgoing tours. Klipdrift was also an official supplier of Saru, he said.

"Saru has had a long and happy relationship with SAB and the fit between rugby and beer is a long and traditional one," Mr Colquhoun said on Friday. "They are old and supportive friends and the potential ending of that relationship would not be a happy day. It would also close a lucrative door that has usually been open to rugby in times of need."

A sponsorship and marketing expert at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, senior lecturer Michael Goldman, said on Friday that given the significance of sports sponsorship as well as the effect on the media industry of a total ban on alcohol advertising, he expected that there would be a reconsideration of the bill in its present form. While the effect on sport and the media industry would be profound, the effect on the brands themselves "would not necessarily be negative", he said. "When markets go dark, weaker brands suffer more. Dark marketing also raises the barriers to entry for new products: for an incumbent, it is beautiful," Mr Goldman said (from BusinessDay)

In 2007, the national soccer team, Bafana Bafana, signed a five-year sponsorship deal with Absa and Castle Lager worth R500 million. SAB’s sponsorships (through Castle Lager) extends far beyond the national football team. It’s the official beer supplier to the PSL and Super 14, principal sponsor of the Proteas test cricket team, associate sponsor of the Springbok rugby team, and was headline sponsor of the 2009 SA Lions tour. (from Leader)

Bafana Bafana  R150million per annum until 2017 (down from R250 million)(from SABC News)

"Any restrictions on alcohol advertising and sponsorships would unfortunately prevent SAB from continuing with supporting the local music industry," Maaga said. (from BusinessLive)

So there you have the alcohol industry crying. The advertising industry is also crying and lying as only the advertising industry can. Once the money disappears there will be crying from rugby, soccer, cricket players and musicians.

In the other corner you have the Minister of Health Aaron Motsoaledi a man trying to win no friends.

"No matter how financially powerful groups and institutions are, no matter how much money they make, I can stake my life that we are going to fight with our bare knuckles to achieve this," Motsoaledi said. (from TimesLive)

Professor Charles Parry of the Medical Research council is in favour of the ban of course.

Rational people choose cannabis

Alcohol is dangerous. Cannabis is safe.

In 2008 60.52% of violent deaths were on average 3.5 times the drinking and driving limit. Only 48.28% of non natural deaths countrywide were sober. (NIMSS pdf page20)

Professor Charles Parry, head of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Unit of the Medical Research Council says, "Over the past 20 years I have not come across any cases where it has been proved conclusively that cannabis caused a death in South Africa. However, it is my opinion in line with the findings of int'l research that heavy cannabis use is likely to have been causally implicated in some deaths from MV accidents, respiratory problems and cancer in this country. This certainly does not justify locking up users. The States's response should focus on public health interventions rather than law enforcement." (26 July 2011)

NO DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CANNABIS. ALCOHOL IMPLICATED IN HALF OF NON NATURAL DEATHS. 

A rational person would choose to consume cannabis before alcohol. The law would have us choose alcohol before cannabis. If the law is irrational, it must be wrong.

Why does the US DEA have a field office in South Africa?

Why does the US DEA have a field office within our country? It is in Pretoria if you're wondering and the telephone number is 012-3625009. I don't know what the DEA could possibly be doing here that the South African Police aren't already doing? Is the US DEA here to influence policy or is the US DEA here to fight the war on drugs? Does the US DEA have agents deployed on the ground, working under cover? The term "field office" implies agents in the field. Who in our government has oversight over the actions of the US DEA "field office" and their agents? Just who around here is giving the orders? 

"DEA offices in the Europe and Africa Region are combating the aggressive methods of operations used by regional drug trafficking organizations (DTO). DEA also monitors evolving drug trafficking patterns, including the influx of Ecstasy in Europe and the U.S., movement of opiates transiting the Middle East for production into heroin, and multi-ton shipments of cocaine from South America in containerized shipments bound for Europe or Africa."

If the US DEA is involved in work that qualifies as "policing", that would be unconstitutional. Section 207 (2) of the Constitution requires the national commissioner to exercise control of the police and US DEA agents are most certainly not under his/her control. US agents take orders from US bosses.

Nothing has ever been written about the US DEA in South Africa. I have heard anecdotes of their agents working under cover, however in the absence of shootings as occurred in Honduras their presence has gone unnoticed.

The New York Times reports that the US plans to export its war on drugs to Africa (starting off in West Africa it seems). The Pretoria field office covers: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe. If the war on drugs does accelerate in Southern Africa the Pretoria office will in all probability become really busy. America has been exporting its war on drugs misery for decades and they're not about to stop.

Where is the information on drugs?

In terms of the National Drug Master Plan of 2006 one of the nine priority areas identified was:
Research and Information dissemination. Where is the research and why is it not being disseminated?

Who should do the research? The Central Drug Authority has a done some "research" into cannabis. This research was pseudo-scientific and for proof consider that the toxicity of the drug is not discussed in the paper. To read this document written in 2004 you will have to download it from Wikileaks - so much for the dissemination of information "priority area".

Medical Research Council have a "module" dealing with drugs. The page has nothing on cannabis. Thankfully the old page dealing with cannabis has been removed, however it wasn't replaced with anything at all. (The old page was more about mandrax than cannabis) Can it really be so hard to find out something, anything, about the most used illicit drug of them all? Apparently yes. Where is the information? What research into drugs has our tax money funded? Where is this research? I know for a fact that no cannabis research on people has been done since the 2006.

Decent drug advice is hard to find. The war on drugs has meant that information has become contested ground. Government have been willing to lie to justify the prohibition.

The abstinence only message also means that the government has nothing of substance to say other than "Don't Start, Be Smart". The staff of the CDA are willing to lie and tell exaggerated stories to the parliamentarians who are absolutely clueless. The other voices we hear are those of people who are involved in running rehabilitation centres which by their own admissions do not work, but again the message is abstinence only.

The best choices are informed choices. Preaching clearly does not work. The children haven't listened to the message and the adults haven't either. South Africans know practically NOTHING about drugs, yet are making decisions about taking them on a daily basis. The government are to blame for this.

The Rave Safe booklet contains decent unbiased information regarding the most commonly available and taken drugs. The information was compiled by people who have experience in the drugs. Real experience, not "I read it in a book" type nonsense. It is drug advice for drugs users by drug users. It really is pathetic that neither the CDA or the MRC have been able to put a simple booklet together, but the drug users themselves managed to get it together some time ago.

More indepth information can be found at Erowid

Premier takes aim at shebeens

Western Cape Premier Helen Zille says alcohol abuse is the main cause of the violent crimes which have given Nyanga a bad reputation.

Speaking at a safety summit at the Zolani Community Hall in the township on Saturday she said: “Alcohol drives the rate of violence. That’s a tragic fact.”
She said there should be a clampdown on illegal shebeens.

”In 2010 the police closed down over 100 illegal shebeens in Nyanga over the Christmas period and we got the calmest, quietest and most peaceful Christmas in Nyanga that we’d had in many years. Murder and rape came right down and that showed us the connection between alcohol and violence.”

Conceding that the idea was not a popular one, Zille said the provincial government wanted to make sure people were protected.

“I looked at the statistics of alcohol consumption in South Africa and they are very serious. Alcohol abuse has been repeatedly shown to be the main factor behind violence, irresponsible and reckless behaviour and, ultimately the burden of disease which the public health-care system has to deal with at great cost.”

Zille added that, by using the Western Cape Liquor Act, the province would aim to reduce the number of drinking spots in residential areas.

“We will also be cracking down on distributors and retailers who supply the illegal shebeens operating in our residential communities.”

Zille said the burden of injury associated with alcohol-related road accidents, violence and other trauma, along with illness in the Western Cape, cost the government in the region of R6 billion every year.

“Alongside the roll-out of the Liquor Act, we will also implement the ‘high street model’, thus creating commercial zones where alcohol could then legally be sold and consumed.” (from IOL)

The Premier has finally caught up and identified the drug causing all the problems. The National Drug Master Plans of 1998 and 2006 excluded alcohol from the definition of "drug" and the consequences of this are plain for all to see.  The NDMP's made alcohol is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry and this department has been anything other than responsible or ensured the alcohol industry has behaved responsibly. What does anyone at the Department of Trade and Industry know about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and does anyone care? Brain damaging babies is apparently no big deal. If it were each and every alcoholic product would be labelled "NOT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN", but they're not. In a 1998 study done by FARR 42% of women admitted to drinking while pregnant.  Between 1996 and 2006 SA doubled it's average consumption. A linear projection of FAS would have us at 10%! When one in ten children is born with brain damage the time for drastic action has arrived. The evidence of how many children are currently being born with FAS will unfortunately only manifest itself as the child grows. If you were to take a brainscan of the child you will find its shrivelled up brain. The Premier has remained silent on this tragedy befalling mothers all over the Western Cape.

Prohibiting Prohibition

There is a hard economic reason for decriminalising narcotics. It costs too much. Not only is it exorbitant to monitor the trade and house its perps and victims in prison, but even the human cost is too high. People will always do drugs, but they need to be helped, not persecuted. It’s more humane - and much cheaper.

We’re not losing the war on drugs, it is already lost and no amount of law making or jail time is going to solve the problem. Just look at our overcrowded prisons and gang-run townships. We’re not even close to treating the symptoms, let alone the cause. We need a radical change in thinking if we’re to redress the scourge of illegal drug taking and it’s knock-on criminal consequences to society. 

We don’t need to look too far to find that prohibition is an ineffective and blunt tool to combat drug use. Many of us forget, or just don’t know, that the sale of alcohol was prohibited in the USA from 1919 until 1933. A movement driven by the churches (who else?) in the 1800s deprived people of legally sipping on a cold one or a fine whiskey. Despite the ban, the public wouldn’t be denied their tipple and so began the birth of bootlegging as alcohol was illegally shipped in or produced in moonshine factories to satisfy the people’s demand for a good time. 

Because prohibition had led to a scarcity of supply, the price at which illegal alcohol was peddled was high enough to make large margins worth the while of criminals to get involved in production and distribution. Prohibition was the fertile soil that gave rise to some of America’s most notorious and violent gangsters, including Al Capone. 

 

South Africans too, quite like their drugs. From cigarettes, to alcohol, to dagga and the devil-inducing “tik”, we’re not going to stay away from these vices even if some are on the government’s naughty list. That is the first truth we need to admit. Many people will always use recreational drugs because it feels good and banning drugs is like banning sex - no law will stand in the way of those who really want it.
 
The greatest benefit of legalisation is  the guaranteed decrease in the criminal element that entwines itself with a high-margin illegal product like narcotics. If you think I am exaggerating, ask yourself when last you heard of someone prostituting themselves for a shot of beer? For heroin or tik maybe, but not something you can get on almost every street corner.

Rehab centre workers will argue that alcohol addicts are the biggest problem they encounter and making hard drugs legal will only increase the opportunity for addicts to get hooked. My hard line answer is that those people were probably destined for misery anyway, likely to get addicted to one form or drug or another. Rather they end up in rehab than become a pawn in a gangland economy. And let’s not forget tobacco, which has been proven to be more addictive than virtually all hard drugs, and what it costs society each year.

As for successful case studies, we only need to see what happened to the US afterProhibition was abolished in 1933. The Great Depression proved the breaking point of the people, along with the hypocrisy of lawmakers who drank themselves silly at parties, yet maintained a pro-Prohibition stance to keep office. Once repealed, organised crime was mostly pushed out of the alcohol trade (and found their way to narcotics) and the state benefited from a larger tax revenue base. We need to start thinking the same way here.

Portugal recently celebrated 11 years of decriminalisation of all drugs, with astounding results. These include reduced health burdens on the state and the significant reduction in the price of drugs, making it less appealing to criminal traders. HIV infections from needle sharing dropped dramatically as did consumption by young teenagers. Prior to the policy change Portugal had the highest rate of needle-induced HIV infections in Europe, a true tipping-point moment that led to the paradigm shift. (Decriminalisation is not the same as legalisation. Offences are administrative rather than criminal but nonetheless a step in the right direction).

The conservatives will no doubt have their panties in a spin. They will be heralding the end of our moral society, should we legalise drugs. But we need to realise that prohibition just isn’t working, we are at our own breaking point.

Legalisation isn’t a magic pill (sic) solution to our problems, but right now we’re just wasting our efforts and taxpayers’ money. The rich are doing it anyway, and the poor are being victimised by criminals. It hasn’t worked for a century in any country that’s introduced it and if we want to drive the criminal element out of the drug trade, there is only one solution. Abolish prohibition. (from the Daily Maverick)

Coffee advert from 1650

Judge offers alcoholic witness a drink

A judge in Germany ordered a drink for an alcoholic whose withdrawal symptoms were affecting his testimony in a murder trial, a report said.

According to a MailOnline report, Judge Frank Rosenow, 53, told the witness: “I think you need a drink.” to which homeless man Miroslav Waldchek, 50, replied: “I think I do, too, your honour.”

The judge then reportedly sent a court official to buy two small bottles of Weinbrand – a strong German brandy. The courtroom assistant returned and put the bottle into the shaking hands of Waldchek.

He was allowed to go into a sideroom adjacent to the State Court in Hanover to guzzle his potion under the eyes of a doctor.

Forty minutes later he returned, refreshed and steady, to testify against a fellow Pole accused of trying to knife him to death in a drunken row two years ago.

“I am mightily grateful your honour,” said Waldchek after his brandy break, the first of its kind thought to have been granted in German judicial history.

But not everyone was happy with the state-subsidised schnapps.

According to the report, Marcin Raminski, a lawyer for the accused, said: “It should not be allowed that courts, at state expense and during a hearing, administer alcohol. Will it soon be the case that drug-addicted witnesses will be offered heroin on the stand?”

Judge Rosenow replied: “It was not ordered that the witness drink alcohol… The witness had the opportunity to take alcohol for his and the court’s benefit.” (from IOL)

Why sending in the army is a bad idea

Premier Helen Zille has called on president Jacob Zuma to send the army into trouble hotspots Lavender Hill and Hanover Park.

"By authorising the temporary employment of the SANDF into Hanover Park and Lavender Hill, a space will be created for the SAPS to do their jobs more effectively, which is to ensure that gang members behind these violent acts are caught and brought to justice" (from IOL)

Calling the army in to "create a space" for the police to do their work is a bad idea. What does "creating space" involve. Section 19 of the Defence Act requires a code of conduct the army are supposed to follow. The premier is expecting the president and minister of defence to come up with a code of conduct without first having answered the easy questions.
 

What is the army going to be authorised to do that an ordinary citizen is not allowed to? Will they have the right to search people without reasonable suspicion? Will they have the right to search peoples cars and homes without warrants? When will they be authorised to use their weapons? What level of immunity from criminal prosecution will the enjoy for their actions? What level of civil immunity will they have for their actions? Will the actions of the military be restricted only to the neighbourhoods of Lavender Hill and Hanover Park? Will the army be authorised to chase a suspect beyond the physical bounds of the proposed area? 100m? 2km? 10km? How about having a shoot out in the middle of Adderley Street?

Can we expect the military to be restrained as the Police are meant to be? Section 13 of the Police Act requires that the police use minimum violence when doing their work. The military have no such constraints. The military have no training in crime fighting per se. The army are essentially well disciplined thugs with guns. What is the role of the army here other than to intimidate citizens with might is right 

Calling the army in because the police have been unable to stops gangs are fighting each other smacks of desperation. The premier still has to explain why the gangs are fighting. Simplistic answers like "drugs" and "territory won't do". The premier is of the opinion that the police hammer is too small to crack this nut so the army sledgehammer is required.

The constitution is remarkably weak regarding the active deployment of the military on home soil. This is surprising considering the use of the SADF by the old government to suppress the population and the possibility of a repeat. Thinking it might not happen again is based on the faulty assumption that the people in charge are always going to be good people. It is not inconceivable that a "movement of the poor" springs up, started organising resistance to the state and the military will be deployed to "restore order".

If things really were that bad would Police Minister Nathi Mthetwa visit the victims of these crimes in an area where things are out of control? If things really are as bad as the Premier makes out the answer would simply be MORE police. Councillor JP Smith raid that the people of Khayelitsha weren't getting more police because they didn't pay rates. I wonder if the same goes for the people of Lavender Hill and Hanover Park?

FAS - alcohol's ultimate legacy

Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug in South Africa at present. Nearly 60% of non natural deaths have alcohol in their system and alcohol makes a massive at the emergency rooms. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is what happens when a mother drinks alcohol during her pregnancy. 

FAS CANNOT be detected at birth, as the child has not yet developed sufficiently for FAS characteristics to show. The alcohol industry is not required to label every bottle of booze with a "DO NOT DRINK IF PREGNANT" label - a feat of unrivalled irresponsibility.

 

Average alcohol consumption doubled from 1998 to 2006 (according to the National Drug Master Plans of those respective years) How did this happen? First, alcohol was excluded from the definition of "drug". This dishonesty has had massive consequences. Unlike all other drugs, alcohol found a home in the DTi.

"For the purpose of the NDMP, the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the regulation of the liquor industry. In particular, the department administers and enforces the Liquor Act (No. 59 of 2003) through the National Liquor Authority (NLA). The objectives of the Act are to reduce the socioeconomic and other costs associated with alcohol abuse and to promote the development of a responsible and sustainable liquor industry." p35 2006 National Drug Master Plan

No one asked what was sustainable. The alcohol industry were given a free pass to sell as much as possible to whoever, whenever. The spigot was opened and it hasn't been closed since. A massive network of shebeens have sprung up around the country to distribute the alcohol. SAB have built plausible deniability into the way it works in that it has outsourced its distribution. The Central Drug Authority have the most massive case of "looking the other way".

Back in 2006 I speculated that the FAS rate might hit 10% in 2010. My speculation was based on the simple linear projected historical growth. 

 

"Johanna de Waal, director at Ignite, an NGO which runs programmes on farms, said that the problem was inherited through the “dop” system, where farmworkers were paid with alcohol.

She said of 25 people from the farm tested, 17 were positive for alcoholism.

According to Ignite, 12.2 percent of children in the Western Cape have Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Thirteen percent of children at schools for the blind are there after being exposed to alcohol during pregnancy. Despite these numbers, 50 percent of pregnant women in the country still abuse alcohol." (from IOL)

There are people in the CDA who should be tried for crimes against humanity. To claim that the rise in FAS was unforeseeable at the time the CDA decided that alcohol needed to be its own industry is criminal. The FAS epidemic was totally avoidable and there are now thousands of brain damaged children as a result. These are the actual results of the policy, yet NOT ONE of the members of the CDA has come out and spoken about the epidemic in public.

How is the State going to cater for the victims of the government's drug policy? There are enough of them to form a class, and they have special needs. FAS victims struggle to differentiate between right and wrong. FAS victims tend to be impulsive. FAS victims have a massively reduced mental capacity and will never be "normal contributing citizens". Can the state now rightfully shrug and say it's not their problem?

Tight tobacco laws ‘empower crime’

Over restriction of access to tobacco could have a significant impact on and could cause as yet unquantified damage to the economy, speakers at a media briefing organised by the Free Market Foundation (FMF) said yesterday.

Chris Hart, the chief economist at Investment Solutions, said investments that had been made to comply with the requirements of the Tobacco Control Act to make premises suitable would be neutered. “The minister says personal choice must have certain consequences. Individual risk must sit with the individual and must not be generalised,” he said.

The discussion follows Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi’s intention to enforce strict anti-smoking laws.

Last month, the Department of Health issued proposed regulations on smoking in public and certain outdoor places, imposing serious restrictions on the rights of individuals, employers and property owners.

Hart said almost R122 billion was spent on the health budget. Already the fiscus was taking about 52 percent of the retail price of cigarettes.

He said agriculture and agri-processing, including tobacco, contributed 2 percent to 3 percent to the gross domestic product. However, strict anti-smoking regulations would contribute to the cost of crime.

“CEE (criminal economic empowerment) costs the fiscus about R3 billion in smuggled cigarettes. The regulations will create an incentive and illicit channels that empower criminals. If you cut down the cost of smoking, you could resolve the problem,” Hart said. “Should we shut down everything that could kill?”

Leon Louw, the executive director of the FMF, said: “If you allow this to happen, you have effectively opened the sluice gates. No way will the nico-nazis be satisfied. They will keep on moving the goal posts. Is that the society you want?” (from IOL)

Mayor too big for her message - ANC

DO START ART

Cape Town - It is good to campaign against drug abuse, but not to use Mayor Patricia de Lille as a poster girl, says the ANC.

While the party said it supported the City of Cape Town’s anti-drug campaign launched by De Lille two weeks ago, ANC leader in the city council Tony Ehrenreich said the posters were in the DA’s colours and De Lille’s image was displayed more prominently than the anti-drug campaign.

The poster shows De Lille’s head and shoulders with the words “Don’t Start Be Smart” in big, bold, blue print.

However, De Lille’s spokesman, Solly Malatsi, warned the ANC to stop “politicising the issue which is important to the future of the city”.

“The posters the ANC refers to are part of a broader campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and reach out to those who need the city’s help to overcome their addiction.”

He said the posters display a toll-free number that addicts, or their families and friends, can dial to seek help from the city’s rehabilitation centres.

The Mayors Alcohol Free speech

The city's Drug & Alcohol webpage

The city's Drug & Alcohol pamphlet

“The ANC is trying to denigrate an important awareness campaign aimed at addressing the scourge of drugs in the city,” said Malatsi.

He dismissed the ANC’s allegations that De Lille was harbouring intentions of becoming the DA’s provincial leader and said she had repeatedly stated that she was not in the race for the position.

Ehrenreich accused the DA of promoting itself at the expense of the poor as drugs ravaged poorer areas in the city. He said drugs and gangsters in Cape Town were getting out of hand, but the DA had not come up with an “effective plan” to deal with the issues.

Malatsi said preparations were under way for a march to the homes of drug dealers to tell them “enough is enough”.

“We will inform the public of the date, time and route for the march in due course,” he said.

During the official launch of the campaign in Bellville two weeks ago, De Lille said drug dealers should not be allowed to live among “ law-abiding citizens”.

The city’s outpatient drug rehabilitation sites also had stands, issuing pamphlets at the event.

It is estimated the centres treat more than 1 000 people each year.

- Cape Times

Is the Western Cape about to repeat Mexico's terrible example?

Western Cape premier Helen Zille has called for the military to be deployed in civilians neighbourhoods.

"While the SA police service have deployed extra resources to these areas, gang violence has continued unabated. It is clear that the current situation is beyond the capacity of the SAPS to control," she said.

"They need the support of the SA National Defence Force to restore order in these suburbs while they proceed with the task of investigative policing."  (from News24)
 

"Even the most efficient criminal justice system cannot compensate for dysfunctional families or absent and violent fathers. Parents have just as much responsibility to “break the cycle” as we do."

"So, I hear you ask, what the hell are you doing about this crisis? Stop analysing it and do something." (WHICH IS WHAT THE PREMIER CLEARLY HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO HERSELF!!)

"The provincial government is certainly doing what it can."

"Gangsters shoot to kill with impunity because they believe they will get away with it. And they usually do." (Anyone who uses a firearm is shooting to kill. There is no shooting to injure.)

"There is a long uphill battle ahead in the fight against gangsterism and drugs in the Western Cape." (from IOL)
 

The Premier clearly does not want to learn from Mexico that the militarisation of the war on drugs is bound to end in tears. Gang violence is DOWN at the moment. In 2008 there were 2634 homicides in the Western Cape and the Premier is calling in the army over 23 deaths! 

Priorities priorities. 80% of the SAPS' time is spent chasing cannabis - the least harmful of all the drugs. 20% is spent on tik, heroin, ecstacy and everything else.
 

It is not a crime to be a member of a gang. Gangs exist because of freedom of association. You can't arrest someone for being a member of a gang. Everyone who goes to prison for any length of time goes out a member of gang. That gangs are funded by the sale of drugs is a function of the current law and policy. Gangs by virtue of their organisation have led to the rapid widespread distribution and sale of drugs.

If being a member of a gang were a crime the whole SAPS would be behind bars. The police are highly involved in the drug trade. I know this for a fact. The police have been supplementing their incomes by onselling large shipments of all kinds of drugs. I know the police have been shaking down dealers for drugs and then onselling them.

Sending the army in is desperate clutching at straws. I have been in the army suppressing people and it is wrong. There is  no war on drugs as drugs are simply substances. It is a war on people. An undeclared civil war on the people of South Africa. There is another subtext to the move to calling in the military. The Premier is frustrated by the provincial policing structures and irritated by the ANC call to have all the police in "one force". Putting the police on the spot is what the Premier is wanting to do.

Drunk MP arrested on SAA flight

SAA has confirmed an incident in which an MP was arrested on board a flight to Mumbai.

Beeld reported that Dirk Feldman, a Cope MP from Gauteng in the National Council of Provinces,  was travelling as part of an official parliamentary delegation to India on Saturday when he apparently had a few drinks too many and suddenly decided to leave the plane.

He began fumbling with the emergency door, trying to open it.

Cope’s chief whip, Dennis Bloem, said he was embarrassed about the incident.

“They detained him for a few hours at the airport and then released him, after which he was sent home. He apparently drank too much and they said he was behaving badly.” (from News24)

Give the man a Bells? Alcohol impairs judgement. Doing anything while drunk is risky. Driving. Flying. Crossing the road. Skydiving. Sex.

Abundance of heroin confirmation that war on drugs in the Western Cape is lost.

The "war on drugs" has been lost.  There are more drugs, more people selling drugs, more people doing those drugs and more arrests each year.  80% of the SAPS' time spent on drugs is spent on cannabis, with only 20% focussed on all the other drugs including herion and tik. The misfocussing of resources has meant far less desireable drugs such as heroin and tik has spread widely, while the police have spent their time chasing a truly safe drug.

Heroin addiction has claimed the lives of at least three people in the Western Cape in the past three weeks and 32 since the start of the year.

Zampelli, also known as Franco, was found dead in a park in Bellville on June 18 after escaping from the Together We Can drug rehabilitation centre not far away.

A friend of Zampelli (who is also an addict) said: “I buy it for R40 for a quarter of a gram. Mostly, I buy seven quarters a day but sometimes I get up to 20. We stop in Durban Road (Bellville) and buy it from dealers, from Nigerians to Tanzanians and Moroccans, next to the road. I’ve got more than 10 dealers’ numbers on my phone. I’m banned from the local pharmacy because I was always trying to get them to give me needles.” (so much for the needle replacement talk in the NDMP of 1998)

The friend said he had lost six friends in the past year, all aged 24 to 30, to heroin addiction.

Sources said at least three people have died from heroin overdoses in the past three weeks, while 32 people have died this year. (from IOL)

Evidence of the failure of the war on drugs: 

Heroin only costs R160 a gram! How cheap is THAT!? Madness!

32 people have died from heroin this year (far short of the +50% of deaths alcohol is involved in)

The number of heroin cases on the court roll.

The number of arrests per annum (Western Cape ONLY):

2003/2004 - 19940

2004/2005 - 30432

2005/2006 - 34788

2006/2007 - 41067

2007/2008 - 45985

2008/2009 - 52781

2009/2010 - 60409

2010 /2011 -  70588 (source)

 

355990 arrest in 8 years. Each year more arrests than the previous. This is all evidence that the war on drugs has been lost. It's over. Now it's just a body count we can look forward to thank our politicians for.

Proponents of the war on drugs will argue that more of the same policy is needed to win. More resources and better policing will win this war they say. Would a 100 000 arrests for drugs be enough? How many arrests will be enough? The court rolls are full of these cases. If the accused is convicted or admits guilt and cannot immediately pay the fine they go to prison. Pollsmoors officials have admitted to me that they can do nothing for them, yet they are at their wits end as they numbers just keep escalating.  Each arrest requires the police to visit the residence of the arrested person to verify the accused lives at the address, taking up thousands of man and vehicle hours not to mention the cost of petrol. 

The actions of the police need close examination. The police are pushing young coloured people up against the wall and searching them with NO REASONABLE SUSPICION. Finding something is enough justification. Finding nothing means the searched person gets to go free - WOW! Young coloured people (in particular) living in poor neighbourhoods in Cape Town apparently have no right to privacy. 

  
I have written about the SAPS killing in the name of the war on cannabis. A good friend of mine was badly beaten by the police at the Atrium in Claremont because the ate the joint the police caught him with. Beaten, handcuffed and then peppersprayed by Arno Lamoer and 4 of his lackeys - with no resistance at all. Arresting people is not enough anymore?

The war is over. Sadly it was no contest. Recovering from this loss is going to take a change in policy and honesty about drugs.