{"id":8800,"date":"2013-05-16T13:33:54","date_gmt":"2013-05-16T13:33:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/?p=8800"},"modified":"2013-05-16T13:34:21","modified_gmt":"2013-05-16T13:34:21","slug":"the-most-effective-drug-pushing-measure-ever-permission","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/2013\/05\/the-most-effective-drug-pushing-measure-ever-permission\/","title":{"rendered":"The most effective \u2018drug pushing\u2019 measure ever – permission."},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

DALGARNO INSTITUTE<\/p>\n

The real subtext of the decriminalisation push<\/p>\n

Shane Varcoe<\/p>\n

5\/22\/2012<\/p>\n

Author: Mr. S.W.Varcoe May 2012 www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au<\/p>\n

There is a maxim that remains constant in our consumerist culture and that is \u2018availability, accessibility and of course the key component permissibility all increase consumption\u2019.
\nI was speaking with a close friend who spent years in the horse racing industry and he told me the story about the advent of TAB betting outlets and the reason why such measures were introduced. One of the key motivators was the desire to diminish, if not eradicate the underground \u2018S.P (Starting Price) bookies\u2019 who would \u2018assist\u2019 punters who couldn\u2019t get to the race track to make a wager on the ponies!
\nThe strategy was to set up government controlled facilities that would enable people to gamble on the horse races in a more \u2018scrutinized\u2019 and accountable manner. Sounds fair? So to introduce state sponsored gambling they most certainly had to have \u2018safe-guards\u2019 in place; the following are just some of the caveats that must be adhered to in the setting up of government licensed TAB\u2019s
\na) Must not be within 200 metres of a hotel
\nb) Must not be within 200 metres of a church
\nc) Automatic Teller Machines or other money distribution mechanisms not permitted at race tracks.
\nSounds wise, reasonable, especially to ensure some modicum of \u2018harm minimisation\u2019 was in place. For those at all familiar with this race betting industry, you will have no doubt raised your eyebrows to the clear fact that all of these \u2018harm minimising\u2019 measures have long since fallen by the wayside. Consumer demand insisted on it, didn\u2019t it? The thin end of the wedge went deep and went fast!
\nNow we see\u2026.
\na) Rows of ATM\u2019s at racetracks
\nb) Gambling facilities and hotels merged into an indistinguishable melting pot of \u2018alcohol enhanced\u2019 entertainment
\nc) Churches\u2026 sorry what about them?
\nNow in this scenario, permission to gamble already existed, but it was access and availability that changed to increase its incidence.
\nWhat of other \u2018permission\u2019 increasing exercises? Let\u2019s look at the legalisation of brothels in the State of Victoria; from 1984, when Victoria first legalised brothels, to 2004, the number of licensed \u2018sexual services providers\u2019 increased from 40 to 184 (Business Licensing Authority 2004a, p.1). Significantly, these figures do not include the growth in illegal prostitution, estimated to be four to five times the size of the regulated sector. The legalization of a once illegal industry has only seen an increase, not only in the spread of this \u2018service\u2019, but an exponential increase in those workers operating \u2018outside the law\u2019, to avoid regulatory processes and accountability. I\u2019ll state it again\u2026 \u201cOperating outside the law to avoid regulatory processes and accountability\u201d Now, we have two tiers to contend with and still with no more, and one could argue, even less management of this dehumanising \u2018industry\u2019.<\/p>\n

So, will this increase in both use and uptake happen with decriminalizing drugs? Of course not! Is the pro-drug lobby cry, but why would this arena be any different to the above mentioned?
\nThe emergence of a new drug genre, \u2018Novel Psychoactive Substances\u2019 (NPS) gives us a clear indicator as to whether decriminalizing current illicit drugs will promote usage; the colloquial \u2018tag\u2019 given to these ever morphing chemical cocktails is the giveaway \u2013\u2018Legal Highs\u2019. The idea that one may be able to get a \u2018buzz\u2019 without breaking the law is a \u2018permission slip\u2019 for, if nothing else, a \u2018guilt free\u2019 try. Social prohibitions that are informed by not merely health and safety, but economic\/productivity values do influence decision making. However, once these are viewed by the egocentric and \u2018care-less\u2019 social isolationist, as arbitrary, and personal \u2018taste, mood and urge\u2019 become the informing agents of policy, then removing illegality gives a further \u2018push\u2019 toward use.
\nIf you think this is mere social theory, then think again. A very recent (and first of its kind for Australia) survey\/study conducted by Dr Monica Barratt from National Drug Research Institute (Curtin University in Melbourne) reveals some, albeit unintentional, findings. The research, published in Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs, \u2018Drug and Alcohol Review\u2019 revealed not only the impact of Synthetic Cannabinoids, but the reasons for uptake. Not surprisingly the top reason for trying this substance was \u2018Curiosity\u2019 which 50% of those surveyed admitted as the motivation for engagement with the substance. However, it is reason two and three that reinforce what we here at The Dalgarno Institute have always known, and that is – \u2018permissibility, accessibility and availability, all increase consumption.\u2019
\nThe research revealed that 39% of these first time users did so because of its perceived \u2018legality\u2019 and 23% took it up because it was \u2018available\u2019.1
\nLet\u2019s turn this axiomatic formula to the legal drug of tobacco. Certainly more than permission for use of this substance has existed for over a century. More than permission was a sociable \u2018insist-ability\u2019 to partake – it was high fashion. At one point some medical doctors were prescribing cigarette smoking as a stress management tool, as mind-boggling as that is to contemplate in today\u2019s social climate.
\nThe growing and relentless assault against tobacco via the QUIT campaign in Australia is something only \u2018mushrooms\u2019 would know little of. This vital and effective demand-reduction and education \u2018crusade\u2019 that is raging against tobacco has been clear from its inception, and has continued to burgeon, evermore aggressively to the veritable \u2018war\u2019 we now see today.
\nThe message is at the very least unambiguous, at times, bombastic! There is no guessing what the outcome of this assault on this \u2018legal\u2019 drug is to be. The message and mandate, at least in Australia, is not \u2018slow down\u2019, it is not \u2018moderate\u2019 it is QUIT. The end game is the only game. Sure, there are no illusions about the time it may take for many to reach that goal, but that goal is the only target to aim at and as a consequence measures and outcomes are effective – more and more Australians are quitting!
\nIn 1945 approximately 72% of Australian men smoked. The rate has been dropping ever since then. In 2007 only 18% of Australian males were daily smokers. In 1945 26% of Australian women smoked\u2026In 2007 women were smoking at a lower rate than men with 15.2% still smoking daily. 2<\/p>\n

\u2022 increases in getting help to quit smoking, especially use of the Quitline (2% to 4%) and nicotine replacement therapy (7% to 10%);
\n\u2022 increase in one year quit rate from 8% to 11% among smokers and recent quitters;
\n\u2022 a statistically significant reduction of about 1.5% in the estimated adult prevalence of smoking. 3
\nHowever, as successful as this message has been, the fight is not over yet, as the following excerpt so irrefutably affirms\u2026
\n\u201cANTI-SMOKING campaigners have far from finished their battle with the tobacco industry, with some pushing for a ”license to smoke” and many predicting that cigarettes could be outlawed within a decade.\u201d 4(emphasis added)
\nWell, so was the bold opening statement in recent article \u2018Now butt out: new push seeks to outlaw cigarettes\u2019 in The Age Newspaper.
\nFascinating! Outlawing cigarettes, even though around 17% of Australians are still smoking – outrageous! The article went on to note that if such a ban were to take place the government would stand to lose around $6 billion dollars in tax revenue, but save an estimated $31 billion dollars currently spent per annum on smoking related health problems.
\nNo doubt to everyone who is not a smoker this makes good health and fiscal sense – maybe even to some smokers too?
\nSo how is that we have managed to convince a society that a ban could actually be possible on a legal drug – tobacco, that in its boom era (during the 40\u2019s, 50\u2019s and 60\u2019s) was a key social accessory? A quick inventory of the processes engaged may give us some insight:
\n? A clear and uncompromising acknowledgement from health, government and fiscal sectors that cigarette smoking was damaging our community.
\n? The ensuing resolve that this must change for both fiscal, but more importantly, health reasons.
\n? The continuing single voice of disapproval of cigarettes from academics, politicians and health professionals. (Stopped the propaganda of the pro-smoking academics\/doctors and started the recognition of the undeniable facts that \u2018every cigarette is doing you damage\u2019.)
\n? The sustained political will to create and implement policies to bring about change, including increased taxation, total advertising \u2018blackouts\u2019 and bans \u2013 that\u2019s right, \u2018prohibition\u2019 on smoking in defined places.
\n? These have been followed by the creation and implementation of Demand Reduction strategies that only grow in number and intensity; including health warnings and plain packaging on cigarette packets; and the relentless public education campaign on the dangers of smoking.
\nAuthor: Mr. S.W.Varcoe May 2012 www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au
\nIt would appear from both anecdotal and empirical data that such resolute policies work, even with a once widely accepted and socially palatable \u2018legal drug\u2019 like tobacco.
\nBut I\u2019m confused! How can such a relentlessness, \u2018war\u2019 on this \u2018legal\u2019 drug \u2013 tobacco, of which some 17% of Australians still use, be not only waged, but affirmed; while at the same time an apparent \u2018war\u2019 on illicit drugs be waged, declared \u2018lost\u2019 by noisy protagonists and discounted as no longer a worthy strategy? Especially when statistically less than 6% of the world\u2019s 16-65 y.o. olds have tried or may be using some illicit drug intermittently, why would one give up on changing that statistic?
\nWhy is a \u2018war\u2019 being fought so assiduously against tobacco and given up on against illicit drugs and the human cost they incur? Wouldn\u2019t a war to reduce the now less 6% statistic be worth fighting to do all it can to prevent it increasing? Yet instead we hear, from a very small, but noisy minority, a call to not only stop the all but non-existent war on drugs and instead let them off the leash through decriminalisation or legalisation.
\nYou, the reader, must understand something here and make no mistake; this call is a key component to the greatest drug pushing measure to ever be foisted on a culture – the push of permission! And timing for such a push is everything.
\nIf you are an architect of such a blatant drug \u2018push\u2019 exercise, you must\u2026
\na) Cultivate the message that drug use is \u2018normal\u2019, everybody is trying it!
\nb) Cultivate a notion that some drugs are harmless and drug use is manageable, no different to alcohol or cigarettes.
\nc) Set up the \u2018couch of credibility\u2019 for some drugs by declaring them \u2018medicine\u2019. For example push the following specious logic; Cannabis can be used for some medical purposes, therefore marijuana is medicine, therefore marijuana is healthy, therefore marijuana is ok to use!
\nd) Have \u2018celebrities\u2019 and \u2018doctors\u2019 come out with claims of functional drug use giving credibility to the \u2018product\u2019.
\ne) However, the real key, if these elements are going to get real traction, is you must have an easily to manipulate demographic. To do that you have to \u2018set people up\u2019, particularly the young who have never really been taught how to think in any anthropological context of sustainable \u2018why\u2019 on life, rather only being told that what they think they want to right and good or bad, right or wrong, no longer come into it.
\nIn our current confused culture, the plumbline for right and wrong has been ostensibly removed. There is no one unified \u2018moral code\u2019 to keep other than \u2018one\u2019s own\u2019. It is Generation Y and the emerging generation who are best set up for this manipulation. Add to that the attentive issues of a \u2018fun focused\u2019 pop-culture, ruled by and ever distracting technocracy and you have a demographic easy to \u2018play\u2019 in a well-pitched market scenario.
\nWhen \u2018selfist\u2019 relativism erodes all sense of the \u2018common\u2019 good and any version of collective morality banned. When anchorless, rudderless and directionless \u2018ethics\u2019 are wielded by the manipulative apologists of chaos, thinly cloaked in \u2018progressive spin\u2019, we are left with only one vehicle by which to somewhat order society and prevent descent into anarchy, that vehicle is the rule of law.
\nAuthor: Mr. S.W.Varcoe May 2012 www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au
\nThe prominent Statesman Edmund Burke made this clear\u2026
\n\u201cHuman Beings are qualified for liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites… Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.\u201d
\nOf course then comes the next question; what law and who gets to make it? This now becomes the arena of debate.
\nI want to present a couple key scenarios in this brief treatise that leave us little \u2018wiggle-room\u2019 for the idea of abandoning criminal sanctions on drug use, let alone the unthinkable society wide and ultimate \u2018drug pushing\u2019 scenario of legalisation.
\nA basic principle of good democratic and functional communities is to do with foundational governance issues. When it comes to legislation, what principle\/s should it be founded on, or at least informed by?
\nGus Jaspert the Deputy Director of UK Home Office speaking at the 3rd World Forum Against Drugs, declared\u2026
\nGovernments should aim to\u2026
\na) Protect their citizens from harm.
\nb) Provide environments that enable its citizens to reach their full productive potential.
\nAny legislation must be filtered through these two foundational principles and the tough questions asked of any proposed introductions or amendments that may breach these principles.
\nSo follow the questions\u2026
\na) Does illicit drug use cause harm to citizens?
\nb) Does illicit drug use impede\/diminish the productive potential of a nation\u2019s citizens?
\nSubsequent to these basic questions one then must also ask\u2026
\n? Will widening illicit drug accessibility, permissibility and availability, improve the safety, amenity and wellbeing of any or all of a nations\u2019 citizens?
\n? Will widening illicit drug accessibility, permissibility and availability, improve familial and community functionality, harmony and cohesiveness?
\n? Will widening illicit drug use improve or put greater burden on the physical, emotional and mental health of our community?
\n? And last, but by no means least, will widening illicit drug accessibility, permissibility and availability improve or diminish the well-being and safety of our nation\u2019s children?
\nThese last two of these questions are most important to answer, not only on their own merit, but also within the context of other social justice and social responsibility charters, being a) Good professional health care\/management and b) nothing less than the United Nation\u2019s Convention of the Rights of the Child.
\nA pr\u00e9cised, but lucid look at professional health management strategies of functional societies reveals that all measures and means be taken to maximise community health for one primary reason (other than well-being of its citizens) and that is good fiscal policy. Healthy people not only save any society immense amounts of money, but contribute more productively to its growth and improvement.
\nIn answering above questions a) and b) just the following pieces of data is evidence enough for governments to move against illicit drugs to protect its citizens against such harms:
\n\u2018\u2018Illicit drug use shaves approximately 13 million years off the world\u2019s collective drug users lives.\u201d 5
\n\u201cAmericans spend approximately $65 billion per year on illicit drugs,6 but the costs to society from drug consumption far exceed this amount. Illegal drugs cost the U.S. economy $98.5 billion in lost earnings, $12.9 billion in health care costs, and $32.1 billion in other costs, including social welfare costs and the cost of goods and services lost to crime.\u201d7
\n\u201cPrinciple 16 – Research-based prevention programs can be cost-effective. Similar to earlier research, recent research shows that for each dollar invested in prevention, a savings of up to $10 in treatment for alcohol or other substance abuse can be seen (Aos et al. 2001; Hawkins et al. 1999; Pentz 1998; Spoth et al. 2002a; Jones et al. 2008; Foster et al. 2007; Miller and Hendrie 2009).\u201d8
\n\u201cThe success of demand reduction in the US is reflected in long-term decreases in rates of illegal drug use. The percentage of persons aged 12 and older in the US who used an illegal drug in the past 30 days has decreased 38% from its peak in 1979 (14.1%) to 2009 (8.7%). Equally impressive are statistics from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which has documented a greater than 80% reduction in annual opioid use over the past century!\u201d9,10,11
\nYet, there is more to professional health management strategies than economic rationalism. Disease control is a primary goal of good health management policy\/strategies. Eradication of any disease is the ultimate goal, but in the interim, management practices can be used with an attempt to alleviate symptoms and to improve health status, enabling best opportunities to work toward recovery and wellness. When there is any option for recovery\/wholeness then that becomes the goal.
\nNo good health professional will refuse or omit such options when they are available.
\nFor instance, when it comes to the epidemiology of a disease, treating physicians look to a number of factors, including the agent of contagion. They look to manage, negate and prevent these agents from spreading.
\nIllicit drug use dependency has now been widely touted as a \u2018disease\u2019 and as such the term \u2018disease\u2019 has an ever morphing definition in various diagnostic manuals. Regardless of the definition, treatment principles still remain the same \u2013 the containment, cessation and future prevention of this disease. Two key factors must be addressed if any sort of positive health outcome is going to be achieved\u2026
\na) Susceptibility factors of the patient
\nb) Exposure factors to the patient
\nSo in treating the disease of drug dependency\/addiction one must address both of these factors to have best hope of the drug user becoming healthy again \u2013 The health that a) saves money b) keeps you from harm c) enables your full productive potential d) adds to your and the communities general well-being.
\nThe question we now have to ask of any measure that will increase accessibility, permissibility and availability of illicit drugs is, will it exacerbate or alleviate a) susceptibility factors and b) exposure factors? If it does the former, then we have breached good, professional and fiscally responsible health care practice. Any action\/method\/process that enables the increase or worsening of these two factors is at best reprehensible and at worse culpable and worthy of malpractice suites and license revocation.
\nWhen it comes to the mental, physical and emotional health of society\u2019s citizens and particularly its children, any measure that increases the exposure or susceptibility to a disease must be, if not eradicated, utterly contained. To do less is to collapse the very core of what good governance and good health care strategy is for a nation.
\nWhen the already available, well managed and effectively deployed \u2018exposure\u2019 preventing tool of criminality is employed, we are half way to achieving best potential for full recovery. Removing this proactively used mechanism will only see the opposite be true in a community.
\nIn summary, when it comes to the notion of drug decriminalisation or legislation and the key issues that we have looked briefly at here, we need to ask\u2026.
\na) Will decriminalisation\/legalisation of currently illicit drugs increase the harms to citizens, the children and their productivity\/potential?
\nb) Will decriminalisation\/legalisation of currently illicit drugs make for better health care policy\/practice and outcomes?
\nc) Can criminal sanctions be used effectively, not as a punitive sanction, but as a collaborative vehicle to enable both unwitting causalities or even recalcitrant purveyors of drug disease to not only diminish harms to the wider society and themselves, but more importantly to discover the potential and productivity that both functional society and good government endeavour to promote?
\nIt is clear that when societal expectations and conventions of protection, safety, productivity, health and wellbeing are breached by its citizens, then sanctions are not only expected, but demanded. However, the caring use of these sanctions and prohibitions is not about what is \u2018put down\u2019, but much more about what can be \u2018taken up\u2019. Why remove a mechanism (criminality) that has the proven potential (when used proactively for care i.e. diversion\/rehabilitation) to provide safety, promote recovery and more importantly promote wholeness?<\/p>\n

I think it is time we stopped the \u2018war\u2019 on good drug policy and start to take up the fight for a better society for all our citizens and not just the one dimensional demands of disease promulgating and society damaging minority; the careless minority who seek to avoid, not only the consequences of their bad choices, but more callously, demand the rest of the community to pay for their ongoing bad choices.
\nI will conclude with a quote from one of the \u2018fathers\u2019 of modern libertine ideology, John Stuart Mills; A caveat even the most self-absorbed, \u2018rights\u2019 demanding drug user cannot easily dismiss\u2026
\nNo person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them\u2026If he deteriorates his bodily or mental faculties, he not only brings evil upon all who depended upon him for any portion of their happiness, but disqualifies himself for rendering the services which he owes to his fellow creatures generally, perhaps becomes a burden on their affection or benevolence; and if such conduct were very frequent hardly any offense that is committed would detract more from the general sum of good.<\/p>\n

Endnotes
\n1. Barratt,1 Monica J* Patterns of synthetic cannabinoid use in Australia, Drug and Alcohol Review: Volume 32, Issue 2, pages 141\u2013146, March 2013
\n2 http:\/\/www.cancercouncil.com.au\/editorial.asp?pageid=371
\n3 CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE NATIONAL TOBACCO CAMPAIGN PRE AND POST CAMPAIGN SURVEYS COMPARED by Melanie Wakefield http:\/\/www.health.gov.au\/internet\/main\/publishing.nsf\/Content\/health-pubhlth-publicat-document-metadata-tobccamp.htm\/$FILE\/tobccamp_c.pdf
\n4 Stark , Jill The Age, 22.5. 2011 http:\/\/www.theage.com.au\/victoria\/now-butt-out-new-push-seeks-to-outlaw-cigarettes-20110521-1ey2s.html#ixzz1OBTg5SRQ
\n5 http:\/\/gma.yahoo.com\/blogs\/abc-blogs\/200-million-people-illicit-drugs-study-finds-120123343–abc-news.html
\n6Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. What America\u2019s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs. December 2001.
\n7 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-1998. September 2001.
\n8 NIDA: Lessons from Prevention Research, August 2011 http:\/\/www.drugabuse.gov\/publications\/drugfacts\/lessons-prevention-research
\n9Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1999). National household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings, 1997 (Office of Applied Sciences). Rockville, MD.
\n10 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2010). Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A,HHS Publication No. SMA 10-4856Findings). Rockville, MD.
\n11United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2007). World Drug Report 2008. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Retrieved June 23, 2011 from http:\/\/www.unodc.org\/documents\/wdr\/WDR_2008\/WDR_2008_eng_web.pdf<\/p>\n

Mr. Shane W. Varcoe \u2013 Executive Director, Dalgarno Institute May 2012<\/p>\n

Source: Shane W. Varcoe www.dalgaroinstitute.org.au May 2012<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DALGARNO INSTITUTE The real subtext of the decriminalisation push Shane Varcoe 5\/22\/2012 Author: Mr. S.W.Varcoe May 2012 www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au There is a maxim that remains constant in our consumerist culture and that is \u2018availability, accessibility and of course the key component permissibility all increase consumption\u2019. I was speaking with a close friend who spent years in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-legal-sector","category-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8800","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}