The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Drug policy: a debate we must have > Comments

Drug policy: a debate we must have : Comments

By Dominic Perrottet, published 9/5/2012

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

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All
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.
Posted by Ulis, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 4:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Lorikeet, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 6:57:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Saltpetre, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 9:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:18:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Lorikeet, Thursday, 10 May 2012 9:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<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.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Thursday, 10 May 2012 12:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 9
  9. 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy