Current drug policy, including law enforcement and "harm minimization", ignores the economics of the problem.

To discourage use of illicit drugs, we need retail (“street”) prices to be high. To discourage trafficking, we need upstream (“wholesale”) prices to be low, so that concealable quantities are not valuable enough to be worth trafficking. Law enforcement is a bottleneck in the supply chain, raising prices downstream and lowering prices upstream. So if law enforcement is concentrated on the retailers, it will send the desired price signals.

To encourage retail customers (junkies) to inform on the retailers, the customers must not be at risk of prosecution for possession or purchasing. To avoid raising upstream prices, enforcement further upstream should be strong enough to maintain the need for concealment, but no stronger. The threat of prosecution if caught in the act of sale is enough. The threat of prosecution for mere possession is too much.

To meet these requirements, the supply of prohibited drugs should remain an indictable offence, but possession or purchasing of any quantity should be a summary offence punishable solely by confiscation, with no conviction recorded, so that prosecution would be possible in theory but pointless in practice...

Making possession punishable solely by confiscation would remove the risk of wrongful convictions due to “planted” evidence. That risk is especially high because in most jurisdictions, if drugs are found among your belongings, you are not presumed innocent as to how they got there: the onus is on the accused to prove that the drugs were planted. Occasionally this is indeed proven...

For present purposes, however, the prevalence of obtaining false convictions by planting drugs is immaterial. The mere feasibility of it is incompatible with the rule of law...

So, if you are on the jury in a drug case, and if you are told that the defendant must prove that his/her possession was unwitting, it is your civic duty to put the onus of proof back where it belongs (on the prosecution), raise it to the proper standard (beyond reasonable doubt), and hand down a verdict accordingly...

More: http://is.gd/noreverse .

We outlawed alcohol during the prohibition era and created Al Capone, organised crime, gangs, street wars, drive by shootings. Alcohol is a legal substance that in moderation makes you feel good and loosens inhibitions. Tobacco is another legal substance that is both more addictive than any of the opioid, and indeed, a good deal more harmful with long term consequences not yet seen in opioid. A very good point is that the addiction today is greatest in the overuse of prescriptive "legal" options. Well heroin addiction is invariably treated with a legal opioid/methadone. More addicts equates to more methadone prescriptions.
Prohibition doesn't work , has never ever worked; and all we have ever achieved is the creation of endless criminality.
There is more drug related crime than the combined total of all the others, filling and overflowing our prisons, with each inmate costing the taxpayer $50,,000.00 P.A.
We have a virtual war going on in Mexico, and many other South American countries, with a loss of life in the thousands! Why? Because a few dozen highly placed control freaks; and or, the rabid religious right, somehow believe they have a God given right to police the morals, sleeping arrangements of all others, or what substances you can or cannot imbibe?
And backed by corner store analogies that are a complete and utter nonsense.
Pushers get kids started on illegal drugs, simply because there is a massive economic return in doing so.
We could end this evil trade and all the death and widows etc; it creates; tomorrow, by legalising those with more or less benign health outcomes.
Legal opioid currently comes with the mandatory prescription; and are dispensed by a licensed Pharmacist.
Never in one's wildest dreams, would we ever allow legally dispensed opioid to be purchased over the counter in some corner store!
It says a lot about the intellectual acumen of the Author and the quite grossly disingenuous manipulation, of the actual words of the refereed to enquiry, I believe, that such inherently nasty weasel word spin would ever be made? Rhrosty.

Drugs are bad, but the "war on drugs" is even worse.

We are paying dearly in the service of American anti-drug ideology - policing, prosecuting and jailing people unnecessarily, leaving little police resources to protect us against real crimes. As we push the drug prices higher, we make it more attractive for criminals to push those drugs - had drugs been freely available in the shops, there would be no incentive to push them and the number of users would actually decrease, it will just become no big deal.

Naturally, it is the duty of parents to educate their children about the foolishness of using drugs. For those who choose to take drugs anyway - well let them die young!

If you are still not convinced by the pecuniary costs of the war-on-drugs, then you will be convinced once it happens to YOU that you are arrested and searched for drugs, even though you had nothing to do with them, once YOU undergo that terrible humiliation, once YOUR home is invaded and thoroughly searched by police because they suspect (wrongly) that you grow marijuana there as just happened to a nice elderly couple that I know.

Will Dominic earn brownie points for publishing this piece signalling his ideological colours. He shouldn't because it shows an appalling ignorance of the issue.

I am waiting for the day - but not holding my breath - when politicians don't just takes sides in the old debate between the 'people are bad and need a good kick up the backside to make them behave well', and the other side who believe that 'people are good and just need to be encouraged and helped to do the right thing'.

This fundamental argument between 'right' and 'left' has been going on for so long now and it is not an argument anymore; both of these things are true about us humans and any answer for how we get to be more of one than the other is going to be very complex.

Dominic says he disbelieves the evidence but I suspect that he doesn't understand the evidence that supports harm mininisation. If Dominic did understand the evidence that he says is wrong, he would have told us what the evidence was and why it is wrong. He doesn't do that. He just says it is wrong.

In scientific writing, and surely in any 'publication' when an author says evidence or an argument is wrong, it is obligatory to provide a synopsis of that argument and why it is wrong or at least a link to an argument that shows the reasoning to be wrong. This is not a cue to link to a republican attack-dog site.

But really, Dominic, where has the war on drugs worked, even in places where it has been wholeheartedly carried out?

"What mother or father of a schoolchild would be happy for drugs to be readily available over-the-counter? "
Such places already exist. They are called taverns, pharmacies and supermarkets.
At least the author is honest in declaring the ideological basis for their beliefs. However, it doesn't stop him being wrong. How would he like it if he were forced, on pain of imprisonment to abide by my moral standards. It never fails to amaze me how people believe their own moral standards should be foisted onto the rest of the population via use of the criminal law.
Its time the government got out of the business of telling adults what they can or can't put into their body

Interestingly it was the same people pushing harm minimisation, who wanted nicotine cigarette smokers banned from cardiac treatment, on the grounds that their problem was self inflicted. Talk about muddled reasoning.

Of course, the harm minimisation system means great highly paid jobs for thousands of social workers. Could that actually be the reason that all those in the "industry" promote so hard.

I don't give a damn what druggies put in their bodies, provided like the tobacco addicted, we ban them from taxpayer funded treatment of the health problems generated by their habits.

Interestingly the Netherlands are no longer permitting foreign national into their drug cafes. Probably providing medical treatment was getting too expensive.

Perhaps the most memorable statement on drugs was during President Ronald Reagan’s term in office on October 14, 1982 when he declared war on drugs. But Ronald Reagan was hardly the first President to declare this aim. One needs to look to the beginning of the 20th Century when physicians were using Heroin and Cocaine in the administration of treating their patients.

The legislation most relevant to the War on Drugs was the Harrison Tax Act of 1914 almost a hundred years ago. One would imagine that America would have changed tactics as the proliferation of narcotics has only increased during this fruitless war.

The USA who talks so much about the evils of narcotics is one of the biggest traders as it uses it in times of war to finance covert operations. Vietnam and Cambodia come to mind but the most ironic and cynical use of drugs is in Afghanistan where the Taliban had almost eradicated the cultivation of heroin until the American troops arrived on the scene and ignored the farmers cultivating the crops again.

Most countries in the world today permit the manufacture and distribution of cigarettes and alcohol which they tax to such a degree they take the place of the drug pusher. Both of these drugs are no less damaging to the health then those that are considered illegal.

All drugs should be legalized. Firstly it would dispose of the mobster element and would cut heavily into their profits which in turn would lose them considerable political power. The state would be able to raise revenue through taxation and still sell the drugs at a lower price. The tax revenue would go towards education, hospitalization and rehab. It has been proved without a doubt that a stupid law will be ignored especially when it attacks a person’s responsibility over themselves.

A definition of insanity is to try the same solution to a problem over and over again and expect a different outcome.

If it's true that Sweden has found a way to stamp out illegal drugs, I suggest that Australia immediately embarks upon a "copy cat" scheme to achieve the same outcome.

I think harm minimisation practices are just another way of wasting taxpayers' money.

The government could also take a hard look at the underlying social issues which cause young people to turn to drugs, and then do something to fix them.

Since we seem to be living in the days of "Almost Anything Goes", perhaps it's time to re-establish a firm set of rules for living, including treating one another with respect instead of disdain, and being generous instead of selfish.

An end to lying, cheating and stealing would also restore a sense of happiness and well being to the community.

This is a complex issue, and I certainly don't have any answers, but I do have some questions. My principal question is why people need to take illicit drugs, and what can reasonably be done to curb or minimise this need?

My simplistic evaluation is that some just have to try it, because it's there, and other people (peers probably) are doing so. Then, some find they like the 'buzz', so keep experimenting - and may become addicted. I also suspect that some promote the use of drugs to reduce others' inhibitions in order to improve their chances of having sex. I may well be wrong, but I suspect that sex has a lot to do with the taking of drugs, at least initially - and possibly leading to addiction, of both drugs and casual sex perhaps?

I also would have thought that, for harm minimisation to be truly effective, a far greater number of 'regulars' would be referred for rehab than the 11% mentioned in the article for the Kings Cross facility? Is the idea only to minimise self harm, or to reduce the scale of the problem?

As for comparisons with tobacco and alcohol, I have been smoking tobacco for nearly 50 years, and taking the occasional drink, and have never experienced any psychotropic or hallucinogenic results therefrom. Although there are health issues involved from long term use of tobacco, and both social and adverse health issues from problem drinking, I don't see a direct comparison with the use of illicit drugs - in either social or criminal activity potentials.

Some people obviously make a lot of money from illicit drugs, and there is a lot of associated criminal activity - involving addicts needing to feed their habit, and suppliers - legalisation could reduce criminal activity, but would usage escalate?

Some seem to think there is no problem, and people should be allowed to use whatever they like, but I think this is a self-interested view which ignores the damage from long term drug use. Can addicts be constructive and responsible members of society? More rehab needed?

Dear Saltpetre,

<<My principal question is why people need to take illicit drugs, and what can reasonably be done to curb or minimise this need?>>

I believe that a significant reason when young people are concerned is the fact that it is forbidden, the risk and thrill in obtaining the drugs. Making it "no big deal" will remove that incentive.

<<Some seem to think there is no problem, and people should be allowed to use whatever they like, but I think this is a self-interested view which ignores the damage from long term drug use.>>

I am one of those who believe that people should be allowed to use whatever they like (so long as they don't hurt others). Now having never come close to drugs in my life, what are my interests?

1. I don't want to be arrested or searched on suspicion of drugs.
2. I don't want to pay (using my tax-money) for policing, prosecuting and jailing junkies.
3. I don't want to keep most of the police-force preoccupied with drug-matters and therefore not be available to protect good citizens against real crimes.
4. It's a slippery-slope: if you start prohibiting one thing, you will soon prohibit others. There are already those, for example, who claim that 'religion is opium', so will the next step be to ban religion?

<<Can addicts be constructive and responsible members of society? More rehab needed?>>

No, they should not be rehabilitated but rather be allowed to die in agony. It may sound cruel, but as a result it will deter others from embarking on this path. In a way, that will be their contribution to society!

Mission Australia has had a program going for 3 years named The Michael Project. It aims to get homeless men off the streets and into rehab and work. Thus far it has successfully worked with money from a private donor.

I think the government should heed the call to take over funding of this project, and also seriously consider using approaches that seem to be succeeding in Sweden.

The law needs to get tough on drug barons, community pushers and users, while providing residential rehabilitation services to minimise or end the problem. This will certainly help to clear out the courts and prisons in the medium to long term.

Having sat on 3 juries involving 1 rape and 2 murders in the last year, I can say that all of these cases had drugs (both legal and illegal) and alcohol at the core of extreme violence.

As we know, addicts also often commit robberies to finance their addictions. I think drug addictions are the most likely cause of the recent spate of "smash and grab" crimes here in Brisbane.

<<Can addicts be constructive and responsible members of society? More rehab needed?>>
Well it appears that saltpeter is. He has been smoking for 50 years and drinking alcohol as well. He is most certainly an addict. Don't know whether he is constructive or responsible though.
Despite his own drug use he also can't understand why others use different drugs. Maybe he should ask himself why he smokes and drinks.

The vast majority of drug users are not drug addicts. Over 60% of Australians have smoked marijuana and around 10% do so regularly. This does not make them addicts or dysfunctional in any way. Unfortunately they are criminals and face the constant risk of arrest and prosecution, plus the indignity of having to deal with criminals to obtain their drug of choice, a drug far less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol.

I hope that those who believe drug users should be excluded from medical treatment are consistent and also want cigarette smokers, alcohol drinkers, the obese and the unfit banned from treatment as well. With medical care reserved only for the super healthy, there will be little for our doctors and nurses to do.

lorikeet points out that addicts are often involved in robberies to finance their addiction. He is right. However, these robberies and other crimes are purely a creature of prohibition. If heroin were legal, it would be cheap and these people would not need to steal to finance their addiction. That would be a huge benefit, not only to the addicts but to the rest of society.

If heroin was legal, there would be even more dead bodies and ruined lives. I wish some people would also stop to think about the damage to people's mental health caused by illicit drugs, and the concomitant cost to society.

I believe doctors should recommend alternative therapies for many health problems, as they are less likely to come with negative drug/alcohol interactions and various damaging side effects.

A lot of processed foods contain appetite enhancers, and too much sugar, salt and saturated fats. If the government regulated the use of these substances, fewer people would be overweight or have conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure, fluid retention, stroke and heart disease.

BTW Lorikeet is a she.

'All drugs should be legalized. Firstly it would dispose of the mobster element and would cut heavily into their profits which in turn would lose them considerable political power. The state would be able to raise revenue through taxation and still sell the drugs at a lower price.'

Although I'm all for the legalisation of drugs, this is fanciful.

In the current OH&S and litigious climate, no government or company would be able to afford to allow access to new drugs. This threat and the insurance to cover it would really increase the price massively, along with the ever increasing tax take. I mean nobody files a civil suit against their dealer at the moment, but that's because it's illegal in the first place, and dealers are hard to come by and have a reputation for using violence.

There would also always be a market for even wilder drugs that companies and government just wouldn't touch as they're so dangerous. Then you'd have to import the drugs to get them so cheap (pissing off the US in the process), or pay first world wages in the production cycle pushing the price up further.

The only benefits I can see is that I will have more access to illicit drugs, they will be more normalised so there will be less social stigma, and they will be of more consistent quality.

The gun-crime will just move to a more profitable venture, say child prostitution or fixing sport results or something like that.

' My principal question is why people need to take illicit drugs, and what can reasonably be done to curb or minimise this need?'

It's not a need for most. It's a want. It's not a fringe activity either, as illustrated by the massive quantities the police seize, which are plainly the tip of the iceberg. Measure the cargo-ship size quantities of coke and other drugs seized against the supposed % of the population taking the drug. It doesn't add up as a fringe activity.

It's also not the stereotypical junkies and wall street coke heads, it's the doctors, Lawyers, the IT crowd, teachers, it's all the respectable members of society who turn up to work every day too. They're invisible as they have the means to support the habit, and the intelligence to keep themselves under control, and have more to lose by not doing keeping their habit under control.

So the lower echelons of society get frowned upon for their drug use, while the romanticisation of the rich cool people taking coke continues, the fine wines are indulged in by the rich while the pikey who buys a slab of beer is ridiculed, and the kids are arrested and searched at concerts where the entertainers they've paid to watch are all high on drugs.

I agree I'm addicted to tobacco (nicotine buzz), and am probably heading for emphysema and lung cancer, but it's not that easy to give up. I also have a bit of a coffee addiction (caffeine buzz), (but at least I am only an occasional social consumer of alcohol - mostly a nice red).

Maybe, as Rhys Jones suggests, marijuana is not addictive, or at least not as addictive as tobacco, but mj does appear to lead to dependence (psychological?), at least in some cases, and heavy use has been linked to development of neurosis, and possibly psychosis. Heroin/opioids, amphetamines and cocaine (or derivatives) do however appear to have far greater addictive properties, often with dire consequences for both the user and society at large. (I haven't heard of any tobacco, alcohol or coffee wars lately, or related assassinations or drive-by shootings etc.)

Mexico is not a good look, and Columbia is working hard to rebuild itself, and around the world a great deal of strife and human degradation may be squarely blamed on illicit drug production and use - obviously harming many more people than it helps.

I believe the excessive use of non-medicinal drugs (including my use of tobacco and coffee) is a cop-out, and a popular means to drop-out and/or to shirk civic responsibility - with the degree of opting-out directly dependent on the drug of choice and the extent and frequency of use. Accordingly, in my view, some relaxation regarding use of MJ may be in order, but other currently illicit drugs should continue to be banned, and their use stamped out by any and all legal means available - including through regulated harm minimisation by way of a staged and mandatory full rehabilitation program.

We need full employment (no shirkers), no-one living 'rough', and health care to restore health - and not to simply prop-up those too selfish to get off their backside. Everyone can do something constructive if they are given the means and the motivation.

There is no evidence that the Swedish drug policies have succeeded; Netherlands also has a low rate of drug use with different policies. Dominic says the Swedish policies work but he doesn't provide any evidence or a link.

This link isn't so sure

http://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/mythbusters/swedish-model

If there was evidence that the Swedish system worked, it would be well known and everyone in the industry would be jumping to apply it. Stupid to suggest that people are advocating useless policies to ensure their income.

Drugs - especially alcohol - have been available in almost all human societies. Perhaps the Australian Aborigines are the only people who didn't develop a mind altering substance. Perhaps they were happy enough not to need this; until we found them of course.

The reasons that often underlie alcohol addiction in Aboriginal communities are somewhat the same as the addiction that leads ice addicts to pick holes in their bodies. It's about self-medication, dulling the pain of living, about self-destruction and self-punishment.

The scenario goes like this; some humans are more impressionable than others. Some people are easily led. They are 'weak'; weak people take things to heart. When their society tells them they are bad people for making the wrong choices, for being the child of a 'welfare bludger' , they take it to heart and they feel pain.

There are enough people in our society who, like Hasbeen, believe in individualism and that everyone should and must take full responsibility for themselves. He seems convinced that those of us who need other people are worthless.

It is difficult, especially for weak people to maintain their self-esteem in the face of such criticism. Some people need kindness to flourish and it is the individualistic requirements of our society that actually creates conditions in which these people are 'hurt', give up and turn to drugs as a substitute for success.

To my knowledge, the aborigines did Magic Mushrooms before the white man arrived. I have never heard of any indigenous peoples who didn't have a drug they indulged in from time to time e.g. during ceremonies.

I have a son aged 37 who has Early Onset Emphysema and Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease from smoking both marijhuana and tobacco. He also has Fibromyalgia, brought on by excessive use of computer technology in the workplace and at home (radiation).

From today's news, truck drivers are forced to take illegal methamphetamines to stay awake on long trips. They also have to risk life and limb speeding down the highway due to the unrealistic time frames imposed by the major supermarket duopoly.

They constantly have the police hot on their trail, but who gets fined or charged over speeding and drug taking? Coles or Woolworths? No, just the victims of their abuse.

The government must fix the social issues and workplace abuses which leave people depressed and with empty wallets. These days most people feel they are being abused and exploited by money hungry bosses and others forced to compete with the third world to make an income.

Dear Mollydukes,

Thank you, you have just opened my eyes to understand why such a high percentage of sons and daughters of wealthy parents are involved in drugs - surely those poor, impressionable and sensitive brats were accused too often of coming from a pig-rich family, which lowered their self-esteem.

What I fail to understand is how come for example that Jews, who were historically most hurt by antisemitism and therefore prone to low self-esteem the most, were among the least to take on drugs.

That everyone is responsible for themselves, is not a political decision, but a law of nature: even those who are not seen to be taking full responsibility for themselves, are in fact responsible for not taking the responsibility. Societies and governments may ignore the laws of nature - at their peril.

There is nothing wrong with needing others or asking for assistance, so I would not agree with Hasbeen, if that's indeed what he claims, that "those of us who need other people are worthless". However, those who fail to make responsible choices when they can, are.

Dear Lorikeet,

The government cannot fix anything - especially if even after and despite reading that shocking article about truck drivers, you continue to shop at Coles and Woolworths, enjoying their lower prices.

The idiots that take these illegal drugs, don't need risk minimization which costs money. They are better off dead and save the community any further cost.

I almost never shop at Woolworths or Coles.

The last time I checked, Woolworths was No. 3 in the top 2000 companies trading in Australia, owning supermarkets, book stores, clothing stores, electronics shops, massive hardware stores etc.

I have asked my federal MP to ensure that all companies and businesses have the names of their owners on all shop fronts and stationery, so far with no result.

I helped to fully unionise an entire Woolworths store but when their union went in to bat for workers, the Labor government only cared about Big Business and not the little people at all.

People who keep suggesting that drug addicts should be left to die in the gutter might consider taking some lessons in compassion.

Dear Lorikeet,

I was horrified by what you wrote that truck drivers were forced by Coles and Woolworths to take amphetamines, but I couldn't find the reference -can you please post a link?

I did manage to see somewhere that truck-drivers who worked for those chains were taking amphetamines, but that article didn't explain who forced them and how. If I were a truck driver and someone was trying to force me to take a drug, then that someone would feel the full weight of my truck and never see the next sunrise!

<<I have asked my federal MP to ensure that all companies and businesses have the names of their owners on all shop fronts and stationery, so far with no result.>>

You could have figured that in advance. It's many years since I gave up on asking MP's for anything. A more effective way would be to organize the people, just as you did in that Woolworths store, to boycott all shops that do not publish the name of their owners.

<<the Labor government only cared about Big Business and not the little people at all>>

Sigh, what else would you expect from a Labor government?

<<People who keep suggesting that drug addicts should be left to die in the gutter might consider taking some lessons in compassion.>>

What are the alternatives?

Keeping people in prison for most of their life is less compassionate than allowing them to die!

Rehabilitating them over and over, would suck funds that could otherwise help other poor/unfortunate people that are not addicts.

If rehabilitation is done by government, then those junkies will see it as their "right" and repeat the cycle. If however done by charities on a case-by-case compassionate basis, then those addicts are more likely to learn the words "please" and "thank you" -a significant step towards enduring rehabilitation.

Also, how would you expect people to learn compassion if the government always does it automatically for them, without giving them the opportunity to reveal their goodness.

Life in prison is certainly a lot better than dying in the streets.

If you support the churches' success in rehab, you could ask the government to give them the money required to continue their programs. As it is, there are moves afoot to tax the churches out of existence and remove chaplains from our schools.

Since the rise of Greenpeace around 1970, we have seen a steady shift in the following directions:

. Atheism
. Drugs/Alcohol Problems
. Decline of Marriage and the Family
. Humanisation of Animals
. Animalisation of Humans
. Moves Towards a Peasant Diet
. Decline in Wages and Working Conditions
. Empowerment of Minority Groups

At the same time that Australians are starving and freezing in the streets in increasing numbers, scientists are now storing 50,000 knitted body suits donated for the Little Penguin, with 2500 more being received every week.

Legalising illicit drugs is a pro-death policy supported by the Greens. We know that taking just one pill can kill a teenager at a party. However, the leading cause of death amongst the young is suicide following a relationship breakdown. (The Greens also support screwing everyone.)

I have no link regarding truck drivers, but the TWU representative said that truckies have to do a 14 hour job with only 30 minutes leeway before taking on the next job. If they don't make the deadline, they will miss out on the next job and miss out on a day's pay.

A truck driver now has to work 50 hours to earn the same amount of money he used to get for 40 hours work, which is common to many other occupations, including some working in the Finance Industry.

I had another look and found the following links regarding the truckies:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3500199.htm?site=melbourne

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3499843.htm

http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/truckies-protest-at-coles/2552497.aspx

Dear Lorikeet,

Personally, I would prefer dying in the streets over being imprisoned (God forbid ever facing such terrible choice). Perhaps it's a matter of personal taste, that's mine anyway, like the sparrow's and as Hillel's golden rule says, "what you hate being done to you, don't do unto others".

I don't think it's a good idea for churches to accept money from governments: governments are secular organizations, mostly controlled by ungodly people. Should churches receive money from them, the churches would inevitably become indebted and stray from serving God alone. One cannot serve two masters! Instead, let taxes be reduced, so individuals can spare more money for charity, giving freely.

Not much you can do about the Greenies other than simply not vote for them. I don't!

Undoubtedly drugs are bad, but I believe that decriminalising them will reduce their usage, rather than increase it, hence less people will die, not more. In any case, it should still be illegal to drive under their influence.

I looked through your references, thanks, and nowhere did it say that drivers were forced to take drugs.

That drivers are treated badly is a separate issue (worthy of attention, but not right here), but the facts that I read on the links you provided are that no one forced drugs on them. Perhaps some stupid truck-drivers were foolish and/or greedy enough to take amphetamines in order to squeeze in another shift, working 50 hours instead of 40, not taking a Sabbath off and placing the public in grave danger due to their fatigue. Does the tightening of their belt, right or wrong, indeed justify their drug-taking, with all associated costs, direct and indirect, to themselves, their families and to others? My answer is clearly NO.

Coles/Woolworths may be responsible for one evil, but that does not justify a second evil, this time acted by certain irresponsible truck-drivers.

I think staying awake for 14 hours straight, at any time of the day or night, would be quite a challenge. If truck drivers fall asleep, accidents happen and even more innocent people die.

Truck drivers also have families to feed. I don't believe they can afford to miss a shift.

I agree with the idea that lower taxation rates (and a better performing economy) would place more people in a position to give to charities. They are certainly suffering at the moment due to low levels of donations and the government not providing sufficient income support to the unemployed, or affordable housing.

These are just some of the problems which underpin the crushing emotional depression which leads to drug abuse.

At any given time, at least 30% of the adult population is taking prescribed antidepressant medications. When combined with alcohol or the operation of machinery (including motor vehicles), they can cause great harm to the community in the form of accidents and the commission of criminal offences. These also rack up more taxpayer costs.

It is not taxation that reduces donations to charity in Australia; we are not like Americans who like inequality and tolerate incredibly rich people in the mistaken belief that anyone can be that rich.

I think that Australians are more tolerant of 'bad' (sad or mad?) behaviour as many of us are the descendants of people who couldn't abide by the laws in 17th century England and consequently were transported to Australia as convicts for stealing a loaf of bread!

There was no taxation of the rich people in England at that time; the owners of the mills, the mines and the factories that employed children, were free to donate any amount of their profits to help the workers who were also the poor; these rich untaxed people didn't even pay enough for their workers to survive on; much like the Walmart employees who apparently don't earn enough to pay for private health care.

The fact is that very few of these rich people donated anything to the poor. What has changed about the type of people who make lots of money and love money? Why would they freely begin to donate if they had more money?

The other thing about Australians that I thought was true, was that we don't like to take charity. When a benefit is paid by the government, with an understanding that the benefit is to allow the person to participate in the activities of their community, the recipient of the government benefit can have some pride in themselves and begin to recover their self-respect.

Lorikeet, I know for a fact that magic mushrooms only grow in cow poop, and there were no cows in their country so I'm pretty sure that the Australian Aborigines didn't use them. There is evidence that they smoked some type of flora that didn't provide much of a high; as they certainly prefer our western drugs now.

The South American Indians did use magic mushroom and other psychedelics drugs. There is a great many differences between the 'drugs' that are in use and an awful lot of myths and misunderstandings because 'we' - meaning the researchers in the area - don't have all the answers yet.

Yuyitsu Jewish people have the Jewish mother as their secret weapon; she uses on the rich and vibrant heritage, the stories and mythgs that the Jewish tribe have maintained and handed on down the centuries, to build the child's self-esteem, to provide them with an understanding that they are important and that they are part of the scheme of things.

We European Westerners, do nothing like that for our children; we tell them that they need to succeed in a career and the measure of that success is their income and number of possessions. If this is the measure than some are bound to fail.

Mollydukes:

You made some good points.

I wasn't suggesting the rich would necessarily give anyone a donation. I was talking about the ability of ordinary folk to help each other out in times of need.

I have done a fair bit of reading on drugs available to indigenous people in various nations, before the white man came.

No matter who they were, they smoked, drank and ingested all manner of hallucinogenic plants, including mushrooms, which grew in various media.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/health/aboriginal-alcohol-consumption.html

http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/drug-facts/hallucinogens

Lorikeet your link even says that it was a weak concoction that our Aborigines used, not mushrooms or strong alcohol. Are we quibbling unneccessarily?

It is accepted by the anthropology people that some Aboriginal tribes smoked a type of plant that had a small effect on their consciousness, and up in the north, where they traded with the Islanders, Australian Aborigines had access to the alcoholic drinks that the Islanders brewed, eg kava.

So they could have made alcohol if they had wanted to; it would have spread if they were inclined that way back then. Kava is supposed to be pretty strong but the Aborigines who knew about it, did not hit the grog the way they do now.

So on the basis of this reasoning I think my idea that their lifestyle provided them with sufficient happiness that they were not driven to discover alcohol is worth thinking about.

It is the shame that many Aborigines feel about themselves that leads them to drown their sorrows; the loss of pride in themselves and their culture that they once had.

Not that I would want to live like they did, just saying that we could look at the things other cultures have done that makes people happy and there just might be something that the Aborigines knew about building a stable society, that we, with our ever-changing culture haven't discovered yet.

But Aborigines are way off topic.

Lorikeet, I really don't understand why a person who indulges in the use of illicit drugs should be faced with the option of either dying on the streets or spending their life in jail. If one assumes that the illicit drug user has not broken any other laws then on what basis does does a mature society have to interfere in his/her life?

Further more what does Greenpeace have to do with the list of social ills that you apparently believe they are responsible for? Greenpeace are a political movement and no different than the Liberals or Labor parties.

The question of the use in society of drugs that have been deemed as illegal is an elitist point of view. It assumes that people in government are somehow blessed with the knowledge of doctors and scientists. In my mind they are no better than me and they have no right to interfere in the life of any adult who is of age. If a man or woman can make the decision to die for their country in places they have never heard of than I am sure that they can ingest what pleases them as long as they are breaking no other law in doing it.

Dominic Perrottet,
Thanks for bringing some complexity to the debate.
But why does "society" in this quote, "Everyone wants to minimise the harm that is caused by drugs in society", look like the innocent party in all this?
"I" don't want to minimise the harm caused by drugs in society, I want to know why our society breeds substance-abuse on such a vast scale? By substance abuse I could mean alcohol, prescription drugs, junk food, passive media consumption etc. etc., as well as illicit drugs.
If we look to minimising the harm caused by wholesale passive escapism, aren't we evading the real problem? Indeed normalising it? The tacit conclusion being that humans are by nature hopelessly addicted to escapism in one form or another?
Has anyone else put two and two together and figured out that the "problem" is really about a vast industry out there being wasted on the black market? It's not an ethical problem at all.
Legalising drugs would be a shot in the arm for the economy, as lucrative as fracking, but on the biological scale. And think of all the small business opportunities that could rise up to cater for a new legitimised form of consumption, everything from cafes to psychologists to palliative-relief wards.
"I do not have the answer to the problem of drugs in our society".
I do, or at least I have a reformulation; it's not a problem of drugs, The problem is our society, which no one can take straight!

>>Lorikeet, I know for a fact that magic mushrooms only grow in cow poop, and there were no cows in their country so I'm pretty sure that the Australian Aborigines didn't use them.<<

Magic mushrooms can be found all over the world. From wikipedia:

>>In general, psilocybin-containing species are dark-spored, gilled mushrooms that grow in meadows and woods of the subtropics and tropics, usually in soils rich in humus and plant debris. Psilocybin mushrooms occur on all continents, but the majority of species are found in subtropical humid forests. Psilocybe species commonly found in the tropics include P. cubensis and P. subcubensis. P. semilanceata - considered by Guzmán to be the world's most widely distributed psilocybin mushroom — is found in Europe, North America, Asia, South America, Australia and New Zealand<<

That doesn't mean that the Aboriginals ever used them: just that they had access to them.

>>Australian Aborigines had access to the alcoholic drinks that the Islanders brewed, eg kava.<<

Kava is not an alcoholic drink. It is made from the root of the kava plant and is not fermented. Its intoxicating qualities come from chemicals called kavalactones.

Aboriginals may have had access to alcoholic drinks but until the Europeans arrived all those drinks would have only been fermented and not distilled. They would have been fairly weak and harmless unlike the rum the British introduced which wreaked plenty of havoc in the colony who were used to it - it is easy to see why the Aboriginals who were not used to it experienced such devastation from it.

Cheers,

Tony

No one deliberatly sets out to become an addict. People try mind/mood altering substances for a number of reasons. Some of them are to mask horrible personal experiences while others are seeking the buzz or high. Unfortunately addiction can follow for some. I haven't seen anyone on here admit to being an addict or alcoholic...well I'm an alcoholic and spent time in rehab with alkies and drug addicts of all types. No one enjoys the life that comes with being an addict. It is one of lost opportunities, deprivation, financial ruin, poor health, devastated families and many, many more negatives.

Giving up is difficult as it can mean trying to change up to decades of a certain behaviour or dealing with emotional/psychological pain I hope none of you ever experience (in rehab my roommate was a 24 year old widower and father of 2. At 18 he got pack-raped in jail. The 18 year old boy never got to grow up.). The brain gets rewired to seek the substance that causes so much pain and grief or relief. Logic ceases to exist. For the addict only one thing becomes important: the next high or hit. Getting treatment can be difficult and many attempts are often required before long term sobriety can be achieved.

The war on drugs is a failure and will never be won. Decriminalise drugs and only let registered users buy from pharmacies. Give much heavier penalties to trafickers and dealers, particularly if they deal to children. Fund rehabalitation centres and put in place much better programs. As it stands rehab is primarily for the very rich or the very poor. If you're in the middle there is virtually nothing.

And if you have to make ignorant comments about something you obviously know nothing about then think twice before exposing your blissful ignorance to the world.

minotaur says "Decriminalise drugs and only let registered users buy from pharmacies. Give much heavier penalties to trafickers and dealers, particularly if they deal to children."
I don't think you have thought this through properly Minotaur. That will not remove the black market. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts and would never consent to becoming "registered drug users". Therefore, other than for the tiny minority who are addicts, nothing will change.
Penalties for traffickers could not get much harsher than they already are without becoming absolutely absurd.
There are many dangerous things in life and drugs are just one of them. We do not blame the manufacturer when a young man dies on a high powered motorcycle. In a legalised environment I could not imagine any drug being as dangerous as a 1,000 cc motorbike. And I would most certainly be very worried if any child of mine were to purchase one.
Society needs to stop trying to enforce moral values with the criminal law. In a free society adults should be legally entitled to make their own decisions on what they consume, and to make their own mistakes as well.

Nowhere did I say decriminalisation of drugs would eliminate the black market. There is a black market in tobacco and that is a legal product. Quite simply (for those who need it basic) it is ridiculous to treat drug addiction as a criminal offence when it is a health issue. If people want to use drugs on an occassional basis then let them but if they can buy a drug from a registered pharmicist it is a lot safer than getting it from a dodgy dealer on the street. Sure, some people would still take the risk but that comes down to personal choice. By the way, registered addicts (depending on the drug addiction) can get legal and chemist issued methadone, which in itself is not exactly a benign drug. If they can do that then why not extend it to heroin or morphine? Decriminalisation won't lead to eradication of the market but it would shrink it and therefore make it easier to police.

Minotaur,
You seem to support addicts being able to obtain their drugs legally at a pharmacy, but want unproblematic users to still have to deal with criminals and face prosecution if detected by the police.
If you can see the benefits for addicts, then why should the rest of the drug using population remain the focus of police attention. Why is drug use a "health issue" for addicts, but a criminal justice issue for non-addicts? Likewise, if it is OK for a pharmacist to supply, say cannabis, to an individual, then why should a non-pharmacist be thrown in jail for doing the same thing?

This argument is also complicated by the fact that some drug dealers are also drug users, having to sell drugs to support their own addiction.

I think an holistic approach to dealing with the drug problem is far more likely to work than anything else e.g.

. counselling for those trying to block out serious emotional problems
. rehabilitation
. jail terms for those heavily trading off other people's addictions
. a job or voluntary work to keep unhappy people busy and lift their self-esteem

I would also argue that a 1000 cc motor bike, which is highly dangerous, is far less deadly than currently illegal drugs, whether bought in a pharmacy or on the street.

minotaur,

You say the taking of illicit drugs is a health issue, and I assume you mean for people who are suffering from depression or are generally unhappy with their lives for one reason or another - rather than referring to the recognised minority suffering pain from a physical condition (and who should therefore be under medical care). Can you think of a better way, or ways, to assist the depressed/unhappy than the legalisation of illicit drugs? (Given that the taking of mind-altering drugs does not solve the underlying problems, and can and often does have bad side-effects - like addiction.)

You also seem to say that the taking of illicit drugs is a matter of choice. Can you think of a way, or ways, whereby those people would choose not to take drugs? Would a drug-free society not be a worthwhile objective - leaving moderate alcohol and tobacco consumption on the table as acceptable socially?

There is strong indication of a wide social use of illicit drugs (rave parties, private social gatherings), with perhaps many first-time users (and some resultant deaths from Ecstasy, and incidents of date-rape). We know, or assume, that illicit drugs are used as a 'social lubricant', but if it was your kids would you be happy with this, or would most parents?

I would rather see a world without marijuana, opium, heroin, cocaine, meth, Ice, Ecstasy, etc, - except for genuine medical treatment. Would you? Is there not a greater downside than upside?

Is there not a greater mind-altering impact from any of these illicit drugs than can ever be achieved using just alcohol or tobacco? And, is this not reason enough to ban their non-medical use?

Do you see what is happening in drug producing countries (to users as well as to pushers)? Thus, are the wider community of casual and addicted users and pushers not also a part of the problem?

"I would also argue that a 1000 cc motor bike, which is highly dangerous, is far less deadly than currently illegal drugs, whether bought in a pharmacy or on the street."

What do you base that on lorikeet?
How many people has cannabis killed this year? What about ecstacy? What about amphetamine? The only drugs I know of that kill people are heroin (because it is illegal the potency is unknown to the user), tobacco which kills about 20,000 Australians a year and alcohol which kills a few thousand. We hear of the occasional ecstasy death but these are nearly always the result of the pills NOT being ecstasy. Again a result of the black market caused by prohibition.
224 motorcyclists were killed on Australian roads in 2010. How many people died from cannabis use given that some 10% of Australians smoked cannabis in that year? How many died from ecstasy?
Even accepting that some illicit drugs are highly dangerous, this is no reason for the criminal law to be involved. There are many dangerous activities people engage in. We don't throw them in jail for it though. The only reason drugs are treated differently is because some people think altering your consciousness is morally evil, and they think the rest of the population should abide by their moral standards using the criminal law to enforce this.
No different to the way homosexual sex was once treated.

Dear Saltpetre,

<<I would rather see a world without marijuana, opium, heroin, cocaine, meth, Ice, Ecstasy, etc>>

Me too, but I'm unwilling the pay the costs involved.

As Rhys Jones just mentioned, "some people think altering your consciousness is morally evil". I am one of those. Indeed, altering one's consciousness with chemicals IS evil, but it is not right to set up one evil (the state and its laws) against another.

Talking of evil, my personal priority is to see a world without smoking and without meat-eating. However, I never contemplate achieving this by violent/coercive means (including legislation).

Others, including some members of OLO, often express their desire to see a world without religion. If you believe that you have the right to take away their drugs, then what morally stops them from taking away what they believe is ours?!

<<the recognised minority suffering pain from a physical condition (and who should therefore be under medical care)>>

Poor fellows, not only do they already suffer physical pain, now they also have to suffer the medical system...

<<Would a drug-free society not be a worthwhile objective>>

No, because I only care for people, for individuals, rather than for their artificial constructs such as "society", "culture" and "nation". It would of course be very nice and convenient for me to live without any drugs around, but that's just my selfish preference: it would only be worthwhile if it could be done without coercion.

It seems some are confusing decriminalisation with legalising drugs. If a drug is decriminalised it would/could mean that personal use is condoned. Of course, that raises the issue of where does one source the drug of choice? I maintain that having them dispensed by a pharmacist would be the safest way to do it. Ah, I see you saying, what about those who wish to try a drug for the first time or are occasional users? Good question. Again, if the sale of a drug is controlled it means assurance of quality (one would hope). As it stands there is no means of quality control, which is often the cause of death by overdose or poisoning.

Ideally we would have a completely drug free society, and that includes alcohol and tobacco. The reality is that some humans, for whatever reason, seek mind altering substances. It is why the alcohol and tobacco industries are so rich. It also explains why the drug cartels are so hell bent on market control. I think the death toll in Mexico is around 44 000 due to the drug industry. That is amazing, not to mention incredibly disturbing. Surely society as a whole should be looking at ways to eliminate such atrocities. And so far prohibition hasn't worked and will not work: history shows us that and can we not at least learn from history?

That's such a good post Yuyutsu.

I think the 'troubled soul' assumption that non-drug users perceive about drug users is massively overdone. I would say a soul that is never troubled or someone that has never experienced any kind of adversity or personal problems hasn't really lived any kind of life. Life is messy, it's half the point. Which is why I wonder why people search for 'happiness' like it's some end in itself.

Sure, there are addicts, but, or people who 'abuse' drugs rather than use them, but I have taken a lot of drugs in my time and been around a hell of a lot of users, and I could only really identify around 15% who had a problem with their drug use. It must not go unmentioned that this problem was often temporary too.

I consider I may have at times been developing a problem in 'abusing' drugs, but I removed myself from the drug supportive environment, limited my access to them, and cut down on or ended my use.

Perhaps heroin is more addictive than the drugs I was taking, as I have only ever tried that once or twice, but that's a small subset of 'drugs', and every other drug I have been able to enjoy without too many problems. Ecstacy, coke, Ketamine, marijuana, amphetamines, LSD, I have used them all, and I have certainly never behaved too badly (No doubt been obnoxious at times, no more so than some straight people) or caused any injury, been violent or abusive or anything like that.

I have cause no more societal problems than a caffeine addict.

I can honestly say it's been 99% harmless fun.

squeers I don't think there is a reality that I could be monogamous with. I don't see this as any shortfall of my sober self or my enjoyment of it. Variety is the spice of life, and the good lord has given me ways to mess with my serotonin and dopamine levels.

Houellebecq,

I'm not sure if you meant to refer to moi in that last paragraph (rather than Yuyutsu, who's too complacent by half for my taste), or Squeers is like your "King Charles' head"?
I'm grateful for the attention, though, as I felt I'd been left out when minotaur harangued the rest of you : (

I can only express my admiration for your fearless adventures and regret I've only ever used cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol myself. I agree with the gist of your post and have always thought addiction is all in the mind. It's a curious banality that we only crave our poison when we're idle and think about it. The idea crosses the mind, which immediately goes to work rationalising an excuse to indulge, and since humans are capable of rationalising any enormity, substance abuse is a synch.
In a perfect world I would have no sympathy for addicts, nor for murderers or villains generally, believing as I do that we should take responsibility for our actions. Even in this world I have little sympathy for miscreants, providing the exactions for their misdeeds are reasonable. Indeed I see the addict or the criminal or the supercilious git as exercising free will, choosing a path in life and daring to hazard the misadventures he may encounter along the way.
I do think drugs should be decriminalised, but one should be at liberty "and" take responsibility, that is take care the behaviour doesn't break serious laws or impose unduly on others. Then the individual should be taken to account. Otherwise leave him or her to explore the depths.
The problem is it's not a perfect world, idleness and reckless/conspicuous consumption are cultivated and moral laws like the work ethic and modesty and abstinence are antiquated. The work ethic, where it survives, consists only in the right it affords to be a bore and a glutton. And then there are a great many bent on self-destruction, or refuge from this appalling reality in their drug of choice.

A bit late, Squeers, but thank you for your great post 3 days ago.

Indeed, if having a society is such a great thing, how come practically each one of us is using one form or another of escapism?

Each of us carries existential pain, which psychiatrists call "ontological pain". Obviously life, for the most part, is painful.

We are in full agreement that giving in to that pain and taking temporary measures to avoid it, should not be criminalized.

- But giving in and avoiding the pain should not be admired either, nor become a subject for envy!

Psychiatrists refuse and are unable to treat ontological pain, considering it "normal". They will not tell you that there is a permanent way out it, because the way out would be incongruent with their role of preserving society. If this pain is canceled, they (correctly) claim, then "the deep meaning of existence will be lost" (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1744-859X-10-9.pdf).

The first step in overcoming this pain is to recognize it and face it. Taking drugs or any other form of escapism jeopardizes this step. Next, we realize that the source of this existential pain is our attachment to the world, our addiction to existence (doctors and politicians do not like you to make this discovery because it unglues society, so they rather keep you on drugs and prescribe you the legal variety). The rest of the journey is to work our way not just out of this drug or the other, but out of this mega-addiction altogether. This is the realm of religion, but I'll stop here because it is beyond the scope of this topic about "Drug policy".

As I stated previously, I have sat on 3 juries in the last year (1 rape, 2 horrific murders), all of which involved the use of both alcohol and legal or illegal drugs.

Try giving that a gecko before pushing for decriminalisation of drug use.

Large pharmaceutical cartels make their profits from other people's suffering. A lot of prescription drugs do more harm than good.

I think my dance coach was correct when he stated a few years ago:

"We have returned to the Roman Days of sodomy and debauchery (drunkenness)."

Dear Lorikeet,

Have you ever played chess?

If you think just one step ahead, your opponent may place his queen where you can easily take it, but then if you take his queen, you get a check-mate in the next move.

The move to criminalize drugs was short-sighted, seeing only one step in advance. The results beyond that first step produce more drugs and more crime, rather than less.

What should worry you much more, is that if you create or support a culture where you can criminalize any behaviour that you don't like (and which I don't like either, just as yourself), then in the next move, others are going to criminalize the behaviours which THEY don't like, including possibly the things that are most dear to you in life as the apple of your eye. Suppose for example that the Greens come to power and criminialize religion (which they consider to be drug) - where will you turn then to seek refuge and justice, having done them something similar in the past?

I have no doubt that the Greens will find ways to get rid of all religions except their Pagan Carbon Faith.

However it doesn't necessarily follow that if we continue to outlaw drug taking, less dangerous pursuits will necessarily be added to the list.

Greens seem to love all of the things that are bad. The biggest and most useful task is to keep them out of contention altogether, thereby putting paid to numerous bad ideas.

You can trust in the fact that I am actually several steps ahead, while others lag far behind.

Yes It is a debate that we must have, even if the solution has already bolted . . .

But more importantly we need an educated debate about Drugs and the Law, not the pathetic illogic being passed off here as 'informed opinion' . .

To then discover that Damien is a NSW Liberal politician and the Chair of the Legislative Assembly Committee on Legal Affairs, left me gobsmacked at his ignorance.

The NSW Parliamentary Library Research Library has numerous background and discussion papers available, and yet seemingly ignored by our Politicians.

Damien, I would suggest you do some background reading to inform yourself on this issue as your mis-understanding of crucial aspects of the debate is naive and unacceptable.

Majority support for Cannabis decriminalisation has existed for decades in Australia and it is hightime that the polticians caught up with community beliefs on this.

The time for reform is now!

To get to the crux of the matter, anything that is either legalised or decriminalised is encouraged. All we need to do is look at the most deadly legal drug:

Alcohol is responsible for more human suffering in terms of accidents, disabilities, relationship breakdowns, deaths and related financial costs to the society than anything else.

To give another example, in my youth both sodomy and buggary were illegal. When they were decriminalised, homosexuals came out of the closet and all manner of alternative sexual practices were first accepted, then encouraged, and then taught to our children as being part of the norm.

Then the internet began to degrade human relationships with all types of pornography e.g. heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, paedophilial and bestial.

Now angry mobs are screaming for sexual equality and demanding Same Sex Marriage.

Gynaecologists are now finding animal semen in women's reproductive tracts.

There are also leading animal ethicists who think it is okay to have sex with an animal, providing the animal doesn't mind, since a human is "one of the great apes". How long will it be before Bestials are demanding to marry their pets?

Eventually I am also expecting to see people who have been charged with Paedophilia citing social indoctrination via the internet as the cause of their interest in young children.

Dear Lorikeet,

I find no basis to your statement as if "anything that is either legalised or decriminalised is encouraged".

You base your general statement on a single example (homosexuality), which is like claiming that "my cat coughs at night, therefore all cats cough at night".

Take as a counter-example alcohol - it is legal, but not encouraged, in fact it is even taxed!

I have seen not a single comment here suggesting that the government should encourage drugs that are currently illicit.

Sadly, government does encourage the drugs which doctors prescribe, that occasionally save bodies but are probably not less harmful to the spirit than their illicit companions. However, I would never dream of asking to criminalize them - for each their poison and let the person who have never taken one poison or another throw the first stone.

The consumption of alcohol is very widely encouraged. The level of encouragement very greatly outweighs taxation level. For example, it is modelled by the purveyors of the new national religion: Football.

Encouragement = greater collection of taxes + traffic fines.

Want a fresh example?

Abortion used to be illegal. Then Dr Peter Bayliss opened an abortion clinic at Greenslopes here in Brisbane. At first, there were arrests. Then there were no arrests. Then abortion was legalised in certain exceptional circumstances.

Then the law turned a blind eye, and now anyone can get an abortion on demand here in Queensland.

In Victoria, they now have the most recidivist abortion laws in the western world.

Medical Ethicists are now claiming that a perfectly formed newborn baby should have no more rights than an embryo about to be aborted. One of the people who has espoused this idea also considers bestiality to be acceptable, as he is also a leading Animal Ethicist.

Yes, infanticide is now being floated as an alternative for those who feel they cannot financially support their children, and for those mothers whose hearts would be much too broken if they had to give their babies away to childless couples.

These are the depths our society is sinking to, and there always seems to be a connection with green ideology.

@ Lorikket - Methinks thou doth protest too much - What is your hang-up with the unrelated topics of Sex and Abortion? Could you please stick to the topic. Your comments are an insult.

The answer is quite simple really -
I am Sovereign of my Mind and King of my Garden - The 'Law' has no right to either !

What I think and what I grow are my business and no others - iI have a God-given to grow and consume Cannabis - "I give unto you all the seed-bearing herbs of the field" . . .

The arbitrary Prohibition of Cannabis, and certain other Recreational Drugs has no foundation in logic or science. Prohibition policy is the direct cause of many 'symptoms' attributed to the wide-spread use of such substances, not the substances themselves.

Drug Policy is not about 'Health and Safety' - There are far more dangerous things that are perfectly legal and promoted.

Drug Policy is not about 'Societal Norms' - Drug use is accepted in our society and with regards to illicit Cannabis the majority of the population do not support criminalisation.

Drug Policy is not about 'Fighting Organised Crime' - Prohibition creates the opportunity for Organised Crime and fosters corruption throughout the public,police and politicians.

Drug Policy is not about 'Harm minimisation' - My use of Cannabis causes no 'harm' to society and there is no 'harm' to me that needs minimalising - apart from criminality.

We need a factual educated debate - not one which uses classical fallacies like you do . . .

If the drug problem is getting worse, why isn't harm minimisation to blame?

Because 'Harm Minimisation' as a concept has been derailed by Prohibitionists and is currently applied to all manner of things like 'Mandatory Rehab' . . .

'Harm minimisation' does not create the profits that support Organised Crime.

'Harm minimisation' does not inflate the price of products and lead to theft to afford it.

'Harm minimisation' does not ruin thousands of peoples lives with criminal records.

'Harm minimisation' does not make people seek legal alternatives ie Kronic.

'Harm minimisation' does not break the nexus between a plant in your garden and a dealer

'Harm minimisation' does not lead to 'Mexican style' killing sprees, or drive-by shootings .

The real question is
The drug problem is getting worse, so why haven't the recommendations for reform over the past 30 years been implemented despite overwhelming scientific support?

As Einstein (a notable critic of Prohibition) famously said: "The definition of insanity is to keep repeating an unsuccessful action, believing it will produce different results". By that criterion, the policy of Prohibition - pursued for decades in defiance of all the evidence - is archetypically insane.

Macciza,

The Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy - of June 2011 - more or less says it all:

http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf

And some reasonable insights are provided by Sir Richard Branson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/digital-lab/richard-branson-answers-reader-questions-on-the-drug-war/article2415508/page1/

However, Macciza, it would serve your humanitarian approach better to be less intimidating yourself in your posts, and to review the posts of other contributors in their entirety on the thread before leaping to conclusions, and to review all posts with greater regard to the rights of all to a considered opinion - and to their right to draw comparisons with other, though perhaps seemingly unrelated matters of social concern and responsibility. Harm minimization also includes courtesy and respect for others - and their opinions - irrespective of any variance with your own views and convictions.

My general comment on the issue at hand: I tend to agree with the entirety of the recommendations of the Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy - of June 2011 - though I admit not having read their report in its entirety. This also represents quite a softening of my former stance on this issue.

Lorikeet's earlier post of 15 May on page 7 of this thread offers a similar insight.

I believe I have suggested far more than just Prohibition.

Dummy spits are a good indicator that someone has lost the argument, and still wants to be "a law unto himself".