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 > Stoned stupidity > Comments

Stoned stupidity : Comments

By Greg Barns, published 18/4/2007

The war against drugs is simply a scandalous waste of money, resources and lives.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
A fine and timely article.

To see the conservative press in NSW foam at the mouth over the Green's drug policy during the recent state election was disgracefull. But it just goes to show how far we have to go in order to stop the foolish "war on drug", and start working to improve the health and safety of addicts.

That said, I've never thought that dangerous drugs like herion and methamphetamine should be completely legalised. The people at the supply side of the distribution chain should still be considered law breakers. However, no one should go to jail, or receive a criminal felony charge for the use of drugs. What they have is a health problem, and from my experience with addicts, they need all the help they can get.

It is high time that dangerous, illicit drugs were treated as a health problem. I've always been a proponent of the three steps:

- demand reduction (through increased education, reduction in social inequalities etc...)
- Supply reduction (prevention of large imports/drug labs, increased regulation etc...)

- Harm reduction.

Good article!
Posted by ChrisC, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 10:00:33 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
Hear hear!

What a ludicrous system we have where the ill (addicts) are punished for use/possession of certain substances while our governments rake in mega-taxes through the sale of others (alcohol/tobacco) which have massive deleterious effects on users. The illness is the same and the criminal justice system is never going to be the solution.

Take the financial incentive out for the dealers and leave a regulated product of consistent quality and marvel at how usage rates do NOT soar and how drug-related crime and overdoses plummet. Or, continue to mouth the same old platitudes of 'tough on drugs' and watch nothing change.
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 10:09:31 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
Hear, hear Greg. As a young person who grew up amongst a culture of drugs and – admittedly – as a recreational user of them, I can only agree that making them a medical issue is the only way the issue can be tackled successfully.

Essentially, drugs aren’t the problem. It’s the issues surrounding them that become the problem. Addiction, overdoses, anti-social behaviour etc. I think contrary to popular belief, the issue isn’t one of education (most kids know the dangers of drugs), it’s about a cultural approach.

You can pay for all the ‘this is your brain on drugs’ advertising you like, but the fact remains that drugs are very much seen by many younger people as a way of rebelling. There is an element of glamour and mystery surrounding them. Rock stars use them, movie stars use them. The excitement of doing something forbidden was definitely a motivating factor for my friends and I growing up. Legalising them, and making them a medical issue, will go a long way towards taking that away. It will also give greater control over the quality of the substance (reducing health problems), the amount that users take (reducing overdoses), and the ability for users to get them (reducing anti-social behaviour like theft).

Drug use is always going to a part of society. Minimising the impact of it on individuals and on society is a whole should be the aim. That will require a radically different approach to the one we have currently.
Posted by StabInTheDark, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 10:41:18 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
The Australian government started the drug problem in this country.
They do massive damage to people covertly, The creation of problems to justify excuesses. Their are a multitude of methods of control instigated by the government for the purpose of control.
Jesus said " Forgive them for they know not what they do!", To investigate this statement by Christ in depth will result in another Quote from the king james Bible, " When a mans mind becomes aware it becomes troubled !".
The best part is, their is a lot more to us humans that most people are aware of, the use of mind altering substances enables the user to be manipulated, or to put as a covert pervert aristocrat would put it, To control men through open windows into the soul.
And just like the King James Bible is, Drugs, another vihicle for control.
I recomend shooting all pollititions, government covert opperatives and heads of all churches, destroy them all!
They are doing horrendous deliberat damage to Australians and the people are blind to it!, or to gutless to stand up to them!
Posted by TRUTH, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 12:16:45 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
Government caters to the prevailing attitude in the community, and the communities attitude towards drugs is one of fear, caused by a lack of understanding. In turn, this lack of understanding is caused by ill conceived and potentially harmful misinformation perpetuated by the government. Caught in a loop.

Drugs are a fantastic scapegoat - possibly the second most useful tool at the moment for scaremongering (losing out only to terrorism). The reason for the success of drugs as a scapegoat, in my opinion, is because those in power are only too aware of the following: that there will always be ills in society, and there will always be drugs - so drugs will always be around to blame. It reminds one of Orwell's idea that the sole purpose of war is to perpetuate itself.

Of course it takes only the most basic understanding of the concepts of democracy, individual rights and freedom to conclude that individuals should be free to make their own educated decisions about what they consume. But generations of scare campaigns have built a disturbing (and to me, continually surprising) fear response into societies collective unconsciousness. The facts regarding the failure of prohibition and the science regarding the actual risks in terms of specific substances is of no consequence, because most absorb this information on top of the pre-conditioned assumption that drugs are inherently evil.

Most also assume, without any conscious thought, that legal drugs (alcohol, caffeine, painkillers) are distinct and separate from those that authority has decided we must be protected from. It's rubbish of course, but it does illustrate how effective playing on peoples fears can be. I believe the drugs that have been deemed acceptable by authority are the very ones that encourage no new perspectives of the world, and do nothing but maintain the status quo (the No. 1 priority of any government).

For example, the US stopped testing LSD in the military pretty quickly in the seventies, when they noticed that the reaction of almost all tested soldiers was to leave the army.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 1:01:23 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
I often disagree with Barnsy, but in this article he articulates many of the things that I've been thinking and saying for years. The only way our society has the slightest chance of limiting illicit drug use is by making them licit - i.e. by legalisation, education and regulation, in much the same way that alcohol and tobacco use is limited by law now.

Perhaps those drugs with more serious side effects could only be available by prescription, but as Barns says, the key to getting a handle on recreational drug use and/or abuse is in removing the criminal element. Remove the profit motive, and there goes much of our associated and indirect crime rate, not to mention the emptying of our gaols.

Sounds good to me.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 1:14:25 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
Fully agree with Greg.
It is ludicrous that the big killer drugs in Australia, tobacco and alcohol, are freely available to anyone over the age of 18, to consume as much as they like. There is a whole raft of other drugs which are available on prescription, many which don't require a prescription but can only be bought at a pharmacy and others which can be bought off supermarket shelves.
Then we say about a handful of drugs, you can't touch these at all and if you do will be treated as a criminal.

We need to regulate the supply of the "illegal" drugs to take the criminal element out of that side of the equation. Take the profit out of the drug trade and it will collapse like a heap of cards.
Then treat addicts on a medical basis, try and deal with the underlying causes if possible, but continue to provide appropriate support.
We don't treat alcoholics and chronic gamblers as criminals (not for their addiction, only if they resort to crime to support their addiction) so why should other addicts not be treated the same?
Posted by rossco, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 1:14:34 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
Hmm... while I think new approaches are needed, I'm not so sure of the effectiveness of total legalisation of drugs... that being said, I'm not in favour of jailing users.

The rub, to me, is it's all well and good to point out the money saved from the war on drugs and say it could be better spent - the author speaks of how prohibition of alcohol failed, and it only allowed organised crime to flourish - the solution, was to legalise it.

Okay... but the two legalised recreational drugs, cigarettes and booze, cause an disproportiate amount of damage, and economic problems.

What say another drug were to suddenly rival the medical costs of alcohol? We'd be looking at a pretty hefty financial problem.

I agree it makes no sense to have drugs like alcohol and cigarettes legal while banning other drugs which aren't any more harmful, but is the solution to add another drug that could cause similar damage?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 1:15:59 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
Any rational person can see that the drug war is ridiculous, by why treat it as a health issue? If heroin on prescription was adopted there wouldn't be any health problems such as HIV, hepatitus and junkies being strung out. Heroin of itself causes no health problems.
For pot the health issue is respiritory so only requires pot cookies to solve that problem.
The illegality of drugs creates a closed world for the users and so contributes to overindulgence, but one thing I've noticed, not many wealthy cocaine users ever seem to get into trouble with the law
Posted by citizen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 2:02:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Citizen wrote: "Any rational person can see that the drug war is ridiculous, by why treat it as a health issue? If heroin on prescription was adopted there wouldn't be any health problems such as HIV, hepatitus and junkies being strung out. Heroin of itself causes no health problems."

Huh? I don't know what your definition of health is but someone needing to shoot up for no medicinal purpose multiple times a day, with all the risks this entails (overdose and respiratory depression, blood-borne viruses - why would users in a decriminalised enviroment stop getting Hep-C or HIV?? unless they are also getting clean needles all the time? not to mention the inability to do much else constructive than worry about your next fix) does not fit mine . Whilst decriminalisation would remove a lot of problems, no one sensible views heroin (or any narcotic) addiction as free of health problems - criminal offence or not.

Citizen wrote: "For pot the health issue is respiritory so only requires pot cookies to solve that problem."

Not true - there is significant evidence building that it can induce schizophrenia in the genetically predisposed. Theories on why this becoming more prevalent include increased concentration of THC in modern hydroponically grown marijuana and the large amounts consumed by some. It also reduces testosterone production in males. Respiratory problems are only a small part of it.

Citizen wrote: "The illegality of drugs creates a closed world for the users and so contributes to overindulgence, but one thing I've noticed, not many wealthy cocaine users ever seem to get into trouble with the law"

Heard of Dr Tim Steel? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/socialite-surgeon-pleads-guilty/2005/09/21/1126982098408.html
Cocaine is very expensive and tends to be a recreational drug used by the better-off. There aren't many people robbing houses to buy coke and the people who get hurt by it tend to be users themselves, which may explain the lack of high-profile arrests.
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 2:36:53 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
Excellent article.
I must say, I don't have that much to add because what most of you said in your comments is similar to what I have to say about this article. We all seem to agree that the war on drugs is a waste of (our) money.

Spendocrat,
"For example, the US stopped testing LSD in the military pretty quickly in the seventies, when they noticed that the reaction of almost all tested soldiers was to leave the army. "
I didn't know that- hilarious.

TRTL,
good points too, although I don't think that legalising drugs would increase the use of drugs significantly. I don't expect it could become more of a strain on the health system. However, people need proper information on the usage, dosage recommended and real health risk, just like with tobacco and alcohol consumption.

The money saved from the war on drugs, if poured into the health system, would help improving our inadequate health system.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 3:01:58 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
It's very hard to have an effective prohibition on substances that are regularly used by more than half the Australian population. Most people know from their own personal experience that illegal drugs are not dangerous, they have tried them and suffered no ill effects.

I agree that effort should be put into controlling the quality of the product to remove the nasty additives.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 3:46:14 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
I don't know where people like Billie get their idea that most of the illicit drugs out there are not dangerous. If they weren't then we would have nothing to fear from their use, but such is not the case. Perhaps we still need to intensify programs of education to convince people of the harm they are not only causing to themselves, but also to their families. A friend of mine who doesn't use drugs has just spent some time in the psychiatric ward of a local regional hospital. Most of the others were there because the use of drugs had severely affected their mental state.

If it were not for the use of drugs and alcohol, a significant proportion of the cases of assault, both physical and sexual would not be appearing in the courts.

Perhaps we should refuse to revive those who have reached the point of unconsciousness from the use of ice or heroin, and just give them the Darwin Award for removing their stupid genes from the community.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 4:27:40 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
'...It also reduces testosterone production in males.'

GOOD
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 4:45:19 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
It occurs to me that to do what you suggest and legalise drugs, it would be necessary to persuade the rest of the world to agree to follow the same path, otherwise I am sure we would just encourage drug tourism to this country. It always seems incredible to me that anyone would even want to try drugs, but then I knew the consequences and that includes cigarettes and alcohol. Surely if education, and I mean real education, was adopted with kids being shocked into the reality of the drug culture by visiting hospitals, particularly accident wards and visiting prisons and talking to addicts, this might go some way towards persuading a large number that drugs are an expensive way of ruining lives and health. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps people are still stupid enough to think they can avoid consequences in return for the benefit of a quick hit.
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 7:28:35 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
Stickman, in Ireland they have a program supplying smokeable heroin. You don't get HIV from smoking.
This business about scitzophrenia being possibly linked to marihuana etc is just more scare campaign. In the book Psychogenesis of Scitzophrenia it is suggested that the constantly changing images on tv may be a cause. Criminalise tv, don't think so.
The entire baloney about lawmakers being concerned about public health is shown up when they collect taxes from cigarettes in packs that state on them "this product may kill you".
If you want to see the disasterous effects of drugs on some people just checkout a few alcoholics. Booze is not only legal it is virtually compulsory, unless you wish to be stigmatised as a 'wowser'.
Posted by citizen, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 8:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The war against drugs, which most Western societies appear addicted to, is simply a scandalous waste of money, resources and lives.” Of course, it won't work because of the namby-pamby approach of most western countries to eradicating drug abuse. The law enforcement officers rarely have the backing of those in authority to send a clear message that drug abuse is not to be tolerated.
Small wonder that countries which have been successful to keep drug abuse to a minimum have taken a firm and holistic approach.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/swensen61_text.html
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/922.shtml
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 9:14:59 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
From Philip's first link: "This phenomenon was unprecedented not only among communist countries, but also in Chinese history. When the Western world was in the chaotic medieval age, the Chinese empire of the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907) enacted a comprehensive legal code"

Is Philip a descendant of those Tangs? His perspective - at least with respect to drugs - doesn't seemed to have progressed much beyond those times :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 9:28:05 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
excellent article. reminds me of the chicken or the egg thing. yes ! alcohol is a drug, tobacco is a scourge. and ridiculuosly they both are legal. illegal drugs well they are a huge problem as well. the impact on users, associates, health system, justice systems are enormous. why do we continue as humans to source these "drugs"? why do we forsake our very exsistence for there high? why despite the carnage and evidence does this association betweeen drugs and us continue?. who knows. are these the questions we should be pondering. strangely enough if ALL drugs were removed, both legal and illegal i have a funny feeling most humans would implode OR explode. i could also imagine desperate chemical seeking humans sourcing plants and other goodies to replace their drug. intrisically something is missing. there is a void since the beginning of time, more prevelant in some than others that seems to be hungry for a fix. why? as an experiment try giving up your fix for a day..week..month...year. oh and by the way..adrenaline rushes are ok. have fun.
Posted by tricky, Thursday, 19 April 2007 7:19:37 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
tricky:

Drugs are just substances that facilitate a chemical reaction. Most of our lives are spent experiencing chemical reactions. In fact it could be argued that what makes life bearable and interesting is our chemical reactions, or our emotions. Rather than ‘forsaking our existence’, chemical reactions – some would argue – ARE our existence. Why do we long to fall in love? Why do some of us like watching horror movies? Why do we enjoy music?

The void is lack of experience. We fill it every minute of the day with chemical reactions, and we seek any number of things to facilitate that. Drugs are just one more. We – as humans – want to feel, and want to experience a broad range of those emotions and that experience.

I’ve seen a couple of comments here which focus entirely on the negative aspects of drug use. What these comments fail to understand is that the majority of drug users (putting aside legal and 'socially accepted' drugs for a second) lead happy, normal, productive lives with little to no side-effects. And yes I’ve seen both sides of the fence. There are dangers with using drugs. But most drug users aren’t addicts. It’s all very well to focus on the ‘carnage’ as evidence, but the overwhelming majority of evidence (first hand experience included) points to people who use drugs responsibly and benefit from their use.

Why are adrenalin rushes Ok? They can very easily lead to death, and quite often do! An addiction to adrenalin has seen plenty of people perform ridiculous feats and die as a result. Do you propose we ban adrenalin? Or extreme activities?
Posted by StabInTheDark, Thursday, 19 April 2007 10:51:01 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
stabinthedark...ido not propose banning anything. the search for "chemical reactions" goes on. no matter what the "drug". remove one and humans will find another. and so on and so forth.....
Posted by tricky, Thursday, 19 April 2007 12:48:16 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
'It always seems incredible to me that anyone would even want to try drugs...'

This is an attitude I find particularly baffling (and although I'm quoting snake, I'm referring more broadly to this commonly held attitude).

Almost every single person in the modern world uses drugs every day. More than 80% of us woke up this morning to caffeine, a substance moderate in strength but powerfully addictive. Around a quarter of us smoke. A strong majority of us will have ingested alcohol at least once by the end of the weekend. Many of us will have taken one of any number of different kinds of painkillers.

Just like 'illicit' drugs, excess of any of these substances can have damaging effects, physically and mentally. They are all addictive.

In moderation, however, all can provide something positive, something that can enhance ones physical and mental well being. Just like 'illicit' drugs.

If one wishes, they can do a blow by blow comparison of every commonly used substance, both legal and illegal, and rank each based on potential dangers, potential advantages and so on. But the result will be neither here nor there, for all are relative to the individual user in question, and to the external environment and social context in which they are taken. What’s good for one person may be devastating to another.

So contrary to popular belief, there is no line to be drawn between what is acceptable to take and what isn’t. Only the informed individual can decide what to put into their own body and what not to. Laws against what people choose to ingest are, by definition, indefensible in a free democratic society.

(We’ll take it as red that if they then infringe on another’s rights by driving dangerously or fighting or whatever, then the law should of course be involved.)

It's farcical how circular and biased the arguments are to justify prohibition of certain substances. No drug is harmless, correct, but to point this out is of no consequence, as the possibility of harm alone cannot justify the imposition of law.
Posted by spendocrat, Thursday, 19 April 2007 4:17:52 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
Great article Greg. I really believe people are beginning to understand the futility of prohibition and all the wasted costs, human and financial, that go with it.

Doing something about it is another thing of course. Elections generally prevent any change to this sort of law.

Re the "war on drugs", comedian Bill Hicks, a self confessed ex drug user, asked the question " If the war on drugs hasn't been won, doesn't that mean the drug users are winning?". He was right of course. They are.

He also pointed out that this "war" is actually a war against personal freedom, as are many laws.

Any human being will ignore the risks and law if they want to use a drug or do anything that gives them pleasure or relief.

I'm pleased to see so many supportive comments here on this topic.

There are of course the usual lunatic ones. Truth who blames the Australian government for the drug problem. Bit of a strecth there Truth. Drugs have been a problem since man first set foot on land mate. You say drugs are a vehicle for control. Ridiculous, people use them because it makes them feel good or gives them relief from the dreary life society allows.

Did it occur to you Truth that Jesus may have been a drug user himself? Research it mate, he drank wine for starters.

Stickman too displays ignorance in response to Citizen's statements. Citizen is spot on.

Love it Spendocrat. To extend that line of thinking imagine how a war would go if all soldiers in the field, all sides, were using marijuana daily. NO WAR right? They'd be too busy to fight.

VK3AUU too raises a very good point. Not all drugs are dangerous. The legal ones however are fatal, not only for the user. Explain that someone please!

StabInTheDark, just to clarify what you have written. Everything you think and feel is actually a chemical reaction's result. All our bodily functions are. Natural chemicals but so are many of the illicit ones.

A big round of applause for everyone who posted here.
Posted by RobbyH, Thursday, 19 April 2007 5:21:47 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
Well thanks very much Robby H. As the self-appointed arbiter of all that is ridiculous and sensible on these boards, maybe you could elaborate on how exactly it is that I have displayed 'ignorance' in pointing out the self-evident facts that:

1. Illegal or otherwise, heroin use is, in fact a health issue.
2. Marijuana is not a wholly benign substance
3. There have been high-profile arrests of cocaine users.

I would put it to you that citizen (and by association, you) displays utter ignorance (other than being unable to spell 'respiratory') of the reality of heroin by categorically stating "heroin of itself causes no health problems." Well wake up, it does. Decriminalisation may remove the desperation and crime from a junkie's day but it is hardly an ideal way to live. By all means make it safer through injecting rooms, consistent supply, clean needles and removing users from a criminal millieu but DON'T encourage it for heaven's sake, no one should be under any illusion that heroin dependence is in any way desirable.

None of the above is in defence of prohibition, merely the importance of educating people on the effects of drugs - please refer to my first post if you have too short an attention span - it is the second one on the thread.

Spendocrat: yes, very funny on testosterone but personally I don't think gynaecomastia would suit me (man-boobs) - maybe it is a look you would go for?
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 19 April 2007 6:06:00 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
Part II -
Citizen: so smokeable heroin precludes contraction of HIV. So? In what way does that mean heroin use is not a health issue in any way? I KNOW alcohol is a health problem, which is why I referred to the hypocrisy of govt. collecting taxes from the sale of one set of harmful-in-excess drugs of dependence while enforcing criminal sanctions against users of others - try reading what I said. Your point however about govt. not caring about public health because they collect taxes ignores the fundamental fact that a massive proportion of our health budget goes toward funding treatment of alcohol and tobacco related illness. Governments know they cannot ban them so they do the next best thing - reduce consumption through a price signal (although admittedly demand is inelastic) and attempt to educate people about the danger of excessive (alcohol) or any (tobacco) use.
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 19 April 2007 6:07:07 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
Hey Stickman,

Citizen's statements are (mostly) spot on as I wrote.

Clearly the prohibition and need to spend large amounts of money together with the dirty habits, sharing needles, are health problems. These are not necessary and could be eliminated if it was legal.

You seem to have a picture of heroin as it is displayed in the media, movies and the like. Yes there are desperate people out there who need to shoot up urgently etc. That is not the actual picture of drug users in general. It is a biased and deliberately nasty vision encouraged by wowsers to try and support their stupid prohibition laws. Given your general view on this issue I'm surprised you have swallowed this propaganda.

Most drug users, all drugs, are social users and you know that mate. As such they do not have that urgent need to shoot up multiple times a day.

I agree with Citzen too on pot. There is a difference too Stickman between pot and the stronger versions. The garden variety is not anywhere like the stronger, much favoured by drug sellers, variety. Some of the stuff they sell is not just marijuana either as you would also know.

The schizoid evidence you refer to is absent my friend. It's the same. Studies can be found to support any view of pot, and most other issues. Until there is concrete evidence either way I won't agree with rumour and innuendo. On anything.

I do disagree with Citizen's last statement re rich users. We are all prone to the nasty effects of any drug regardless of status.

I do point to ignorance where I see it Stickman and I hope you do too. Without anyone pointing we sink into the mire of gossip which is where our society currently sits. If I have to appoint myself, I will and do. I hope you feel strongly enough about your statements to do the same for yourself. If you don't then why write at all?
Posted by RobbyH, Friday, 20 April 2007 10:19:04 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
stickman: huh? Man boobs? Testosterone? What are you on about?

It's funny how often those arguing *against* the legalisation of drugs appear to be talking as if they're *on* a large amount of drugs..
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 20 April 2007 1:39:56 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
People who use cannabis experience a feeling of well-being.
Wowsers don't like that.
Posted by gulliver, Saturday, 21 April 2007 3:10:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here’s the reality: By popular demand, drugs are here to stay, whether the powers that be like it or not. By outlawing drugs, the government has effectively reduced its capacity to deal with any problems caused by drugs

The problem is, by legalizing drugs, we may potentially create many new drug related problems. If we legalized drugs in the same way that alcohol is available legally, we would see increased rates of abuse, having negative effects on many people’s work ethics, family life, safety, etc. But why should the majority of drug users, who are hard-working, responsible people, be penalized by the actions of an irresponsible few?

To end the problems created in our society by the ridiculous war on drugs/freedom, without causing a societal breakdown caused by the legalization and subsequent mass abuse of drugs, we must find some middle ground. Drug use could be a privilege granted by the government, in much the same way as car licences are granted. Cars are convenient for many, but in the hands of a reckless driver, a car can be hazardous. We distinguish between those who have proved they are capable and responsible enough to drive by issuing them a licence - those that fail the test don’t receive a licence. Those that are licenced, and repeatedly breach their licence conditions, have their privileges suspended. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s certainly better than banning cars because they are potentially dangerous!

We could allow the (otherwise) law abiding majority of users the freedom to enjoy drugs, whilst preventing drug abusers from gaining access to substances that have a detrimental effect on themselves and society. To do this, we could introduce a drug licencing system that requires applicants to meet certain criteria, such as medical certificates, psychological tests, positive references from employers/coworkers, no history of violence, etc. Licencees would be reviewed, every so often, to ensure their drug use doesn’t have detrimental effects on them or society. Alcohol should also be included in this scheme. Violent, obnoxious drunks are clearly incapable of drinking responsibly, and should not be allowed near it!
Posted by Bartman, Saturday, 21 April 2007 4:24:54 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
gulliver: Well being is clarity of the mind and not some chemically induced stupor.

Many of you nice folks are hallucinating about the failure on the ‘war of drugs’ when only half-hearted measures are taken against offenders in this country. Apply the Cuban method and drug addiction will be greatly reduced.

The arguments put forward by Greg Barns have been largely debunked in an article by the US Department of Justice. ‘Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions’

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/myths/myths6.htm
Posted by Philip Tang, Saturday, 21 April 2007 10:57:17 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
Philip Tang:

"Many of you nice folks are hallucinating about the failure on the ‘war of drugs’ when only half-hearted measures are taken against offenders in this country. Apply the Cuban method and drug addiction will be greatly reduced."

Well, lets have a look at the Singapore, the country with (arguably), the harshest approach to illicit drug use. Corporal punishment, mandatory prison terms and execution are all posible punishments a drug user, producer or trafficker could face.

Have these policies led to a reduction in drug use and drug relate crime? Well, yes and no. One sucess of the policy has been to limit epedemics of drug use, essentially keeping drug use below a critical threshold.

However, overall the policy has not stopped young Singaporese from taking drugs (particularly ice) or stopped smuggling. The Singapore Central Bureau of Nacotics showed that 3393 people were arrested in 2002 for drug offenses. During this year there was an increase of 16% of first time offenders arrested over 2001.

The rates of drug use in Singapore have decreased for some drugs, and risen for others. In 2002, 620 arrests were made for methamphetamine. In 2001: 230. Similar rises were reported in etctasy.

In order to enforce this law, the Singapore prisons department estimates that about 400 people have been executed since 1991. The war against drugs in Singapore has infinged upon the rights of the citizens, who can now be searched without a warrent, and are assumed guilty in court. The Misuse of Drugs Act has made Singapore the worlds biggest executor per capita. A the while, people still continue to take drugs in Singapor.

To quote the legal study: Drug War, Asian Style

"These policies do not appear to be particularly effective"

www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/swensen61.html
Posted by ChrisC, Saturday, 21 April 2007 6:52:16 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
Great article and great responses from posters. Being originally from the Netherlands I've followed the drug debate in that country.

Drug abuse has long been seen as a health problem. Every 4/5 years indept research is done to determine the current level of drug use amongst the Dutch.

Interestingly, in such a liberal country, drug use is slightly lower amongst its citizens than say in Australia and much, much lower than in the USA. Also, the age at which drugs are first used is higher in the Netherlands, than it is here or in the USA. Which goes to show, prohibition just does not work.

There are billions, upon billions of dollars flowing into the pockets of highly organised cartels. Some Afghani tribes are using these dollars to buy arms made in....,but that's another story.

Spendocrat, you'll be scaring the bejesus out of many by suggesting that illegally acquired drugs are not the greatest evil. We've been brain washed for so long. The truth is of course, that drug use and misuse has been with us since the cave days.
Posted by yvonne, Saturday, 21 April 2007 7:56:32 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
Anyone who continues to support prohibition should read the information of a new study on Australia's "war against durgs" at this link : http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21603780-5003402,00.html.

It is noted that even John Howard is changing tack by announcing a package more focused on rehab and education. We hope anmyway.
Posted by RobbyH, Monday, 23 April 2007 6:40:58 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
What a fantastic article!

There is nothing more I can add to the content as it was spot on.

Given the almost unanimous responses in agreement that 'prohibition is a abysmal failure', and that we need to consider an approach which includes restricted access to legally produced drugs by consenting adults - why is there not a formal movement that we can get involved in to further this aim?

It would seem that despite the current lunacy which surrounds this issue in the public domain, that anyone with even half a rational brain can see the futility of the law and order approach to drugs.

Somebody please start a formal movement against prohibition. I'd be the first to sign up.

Daniel

The following article is a brilliant assessment http://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP83.pdf
Posted by Daniel06, Monday, 23 April 2007 4:21:49 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
Spendocrat - you seem to have missed the point of the article, it was about DECRIMINALISATION not LEGALISATION - they are very different beasts... and all of my posts have been PRO-decriminalisation. I was the second poster on this thread and whole-heartedly backed the views espoused in the original article. The man-boobs thing was in reponse to your flippant comment about reduced testosterone in males being a good thing - medically, it is not.

Robby H:
Thanks for adding your learned opinion to the debate on the medical effects of marijuana. I imagine all those researchers out there will by now have abandoned their years of case-control studies and painstaking efforts to gain greater scientific wisdom in the devastating light of your latest contribution to the collective wisdom of humanity - that "schizoid evidence you refer to is absent.."

Thanks also for the insightful comments on why the studies were flawed, how they could have been better constructed, etc. As for your differentiation between 'pot' and more potent varieties, if you had bothered reading my reply to citizen properly, you would note that I had already pointed out the fact that researchers were suggesting that increased potency of modern cannabis was a potential factor in increased levels of schizophrenia (which you deny, citing no evidence). Studies to date have been equivocal and though no-one has proved outright causality, (in the way, say that smoking and lung cancer are linked) many who work in the field are convinced that there is a link.
(tbc)
Posted by stickman, Monday, 23 April 2007 7:43:51 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
As for heroin use, the idea that there are legions of well-functioning heroin users out there just casually shooting up before bed and beautifully managing their use is just utter garbage. Do you know anything about opiate dependency? Do you know anything about the physiological effects of opiates? I really doubt it given the rubbish that you post here. The health effects of heroin use are NOT just a media beat-up, they are real and they are a problem, despite what you and others here seem to think.

So, because I apparently need to make the point clearer for some people, here is my 2c worth.

- Drug dependent people should not be punished through the criminal justice system. IT IS A HEALTH PROBLEM AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH
- Rather than trying to throw ever-increasing $$ at prosecuting dealers, simply take them (and the crime that currently goes with drug dependency) out of the equation by allowing registered users (patients) to access regular supply as well as clean needles. This is not tantamount to an open-slather approach, telling people it is all legal and to take whatever they want, because we don't care as a society.
- Allocate newly freed-up resources to educating people as to what drugs can do to their bodies (including tobacco and alcohol) and trying to minimise use.

So YES I disagree with the ultra-libertarian views of some posters here, that regular drug use is harmless, inevitable and we owe our children nothing in terms of trying to protect them from some of the damage that they can do. Drugs DO do harm. Decriminalisation and legalisation are different things. We need to embrace the former as a matter of urgency but be very wary of the latter
Posted by stickman, Monday, 23 April 2007 7:49:29 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
Stickman, you are right in differentiating between decriminalization and legalization. Any drug with regular usage, like nicotine, ends up becoming addictive. And really, the merits or otherwise, of using mind altering substances is another discussion altogether.

Contrary to popular belief, drugs are not legalized in the Netherlands, but is decriminalized. The 'coffee shops' are a typically Dutch comprise, they're not actually legal as such. Incidentally, they are struggling to survive. The novelty has worn off.

It seems a bit ironic to make drugs legal when we are coming to the conclusion that cigarette smoking needs to be made as unacceptable as possible. Wouldn't it be great if it became as uncool to be stoned as it is to light up a ciggie? And then, wouldn't it be great if it was really uncool to be blotto or plastered on booze?
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:20:12 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
'war on drugs'. i think its time to surrender. we could open franchises like 7/11's that dispense any drug one desires. from ciggies to heroin. uppers, downers, fast drugs, slow drugs. your choice could be the very social drugs like your saturday night wine or a very anti social isolating soul destroying one like heroin. upon your purchase ones name would be noted. we could quantify real figures of usage and who is using what. all the loot saved from the 'war on drugs' could be directed towards rehabilitation and education for THOSE THAT WANT IT. any extra cash could go towards hospitals ,schools, pay rises for the socially awkward and supporting the aged. of course the big losers would be the justice system and the empty rhetoric of the pollies
Posted by tricky, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 7:57:33 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
stickman - I'm with you now, my apologies.

About the testosterone, I was making a round-about sort of point that there's a few too many people kickin about in the world today, maybe a lower sperm count isn't such a bad thing. I'm working fairly hard on getting mine down to zero...
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:49:16 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
Spendocrat - no worries, I figured you had just forgotten where the reference came from :) I totally understood the point of what you were saying, there are a few neo-cons and others who might do with a little more forethought and a little less aggression.

Yvonne - yeah you are right, I think that is a common error to equate legalisation with decriminalisation. None of my posts should be misconstrued as wowserish though, I have tried bits and pieces of most things and know that experimentation is part of life, but am also fortunate enough to know enough about whatever I have tried to know when to stop. I also know what NOT to try! I reckon that more information can never be a bad thing when it comes to drugs.
Posted by stickman, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 10:46:56 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
I agree Stickman, more information in general is a good thing.

I understand you want to differentiate between decriminalisation and legalisation. But what about recreational use? I think this is where the majority of the market is at. The majority of drugs users are clearly recreational users who aren’t addicted to a substance. And yes obviously heroin is highly addictive and there are benefits to treating it as a medical problem, because it is. When a user becomes physiologically dependent on a drug it’s quite clearly a medical issue.

But what about those recreational users of any drug? How many of them are going to want to be registered with a hospital, and are you proposing they can just show up with their prescription on Friday night and walk out with whatever drugs they plan on doing on the weekend?

So decriminalisation won’t destroy the black market. It might destroy the Heroin blackmarket, but the dealers will just move on to other drugs, like they’re doing already (because they know where the money is)
Posted by StabInTheDark, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:43:56 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
Stabinthedark, it would be great if a democratic society could let autonomous adults do to themselves what they want. To be able to go to a shop and buy your favourite mind altering substance, a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of plonk for a relaxing Friday night.

Unfortunately, these things come at a cost. With cigarettes for instances, it is known that addicted smokers cost society an awful lot of money, dealing with the effects of smoking. Ditto misuse of alcohol.

It is a bit like the law for motor cyclists to wear helmets and seatbelts in cars. I mean, why shouldn't you let the wind blow through your hair if you want? What is it to you if I want to risk my brain? But, some of us even get cranky when public money has to be spent rescuing sailors or bushwalkers,let alone paying oodles for my rehab after coming of the bike without a helmet.

That's what it is really all about. The cost when things go wrong. Because really, what would anyone care if Spendocrat tries different substances to get his sperm count down because he's too scared to go for the snip? (Spendocrat, I know you have broad shoulders and can handle the little dig). I say, everyone to his own, but many taxpayers don't.

The argument that 'the war on drugs' is far more costly and has negligent results than harm minimisation, which is cheaper and has better results is the way to go. Especially for those people who have no personal experience of drug use, or who have only been exposed to the horror of drug abuse. Like a lung cancer victim has no sympathy for anyone taking up smoking.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 8:55:02 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
More like “stoned stupidity” on your part Greg. I'd sooner fight you in this state than some person who’s off his brain on hardcore illicit drugs. Your "stoned stupidity" heading is very clever in that it highlights the immediate effects of “soft” illicit drugs. Why not "raging-uncontrollable- I'll- faaaking-kill-the-faaacken'- lot -ya'-faaacken'- caants kind of drug-induced stupidity of illicits that also wind the endocrine system into kill-kill mode?

Greg says: "Let's end the unwinnable war on drugs now." No this wrong. We must resist regardless. GB’s argument is a bit like saying that it is too costly to control the drink drivers so let’s just roll over and let the drunks go for it. Also, it is like saying that alcohol/ cigarettes are damaging but legal - and more importantly, right or wrong, have a kind of cultural embeddedness - so let's legalise and embed other even more damaging products as well. Where's the long-term, wider harm minimisation?

So fellas start buying up big on your "drug" of choice. If you get off on guns go for it; like danger - refuse to wear your helmets, seat belts; paedophiles just keep stealing those kids lives; if enough of you do it and ignore the laws that are made for our safety and guidance then eventually some politician will rollover and submit to anarchy. Join together and muck the laws and thus democracy up. Moreover, to have a valid and, I think, moral argument, you'd have to argue to ban grog and fags too.

My main concern is this. In our democracy, which is really a kind of republic, our laws are themselves the example of what is the best way to live and what is good for society's well being, safety and social cohesion. I think that is most important to build and present strong moral and ethical foundation for our youngsters to at least influence their life choices. Yes some will rebel and if they get hooked on illicit drugs they shouldn't be the ones to take the full consequences of their unwise choices - it must be the pushers.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 10:49:19 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
Hi Yvonne,

I agree harm minimization is important and that decriminalizing drugs will make this more effective, but I question just how much more effective.

If we take your example of cigarettes for instance. Looking at this study (which is slightly out of date I’ll admit), the cost of hospitalizations from cigarette smoking would be somewhere close to $1 billion.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/184_01_020106/letters_020106_fm-2.html

And yet tax revenue from cigarettes currently measures somewhere up over $5 billion. So we’re actually in the black, quite considerably, with regards to costs.

I’m just curious as to how decriminalization would be handled with regards to drugs. Are we talking all drugs? Or just some? What regulations or penalties would remain?
Posted by StabInTheDark, Thursday, 26 April 2007 10:52:43 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
Having said that (above), it is often these kids who do indeed suffer serious consequences even after they have given away drugs - some end up with serious brain chemical imbalances and a quality of life that is truly sad . Not to mention any poor soul who happens to get their head knocked off by some person who specifically takes an illicit drug that is known to induce an uncontrollable rage or the parents and friends of youngsters who have long-term effects from “soft’ drugs. So I think we must honour life-affirming laws rather than roll over for the sake of expediency.

I question how serious the police are in drug control. I was recently at a gig with some fairly wild-looking folk and other people approached them trying to score. Don’t the police do undercover? Of course you can pick one a mile off.

I d agree that the demand is there and I don't think anything will stop people from rebelling or self-harming in this way but to roll over and stop trying to nail the pushers and in a sense join them is plain wrong. Assisting folk with killing themselves; harming their brain function, and thus long-term happiness; and allowing users to take drugs that endanger others (even in a controlled situation) minimises expense but in the long term, I think, will lead to more harm (Why would you want to take a party drug in a controlled situation?). Medical assistance for users yes but wage war on the suppliers.

Anyhow, given that it is already illegal except for licensed companies and individuals to grow or market tobacco do you really think that new now-legal drug dealers are going to be able to compete especially as they will be putting themselves into an even more culpable position than tobacco companies in relation to compensation claims? It is a lot easier to produce tabs illegally than to be straight and face the undoubted profit-destroying law suites. Law enforcement will still have to expend time and energy keeping things I check.

And it’s just plain wrong.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 10:58:59 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
Ronnie Peters.

Despite your passionate ranting nothing you are saying is actually based on “EVIDENCE”

Do you honestly think you know more than medical experts like Alex Wodak? Do you?

Or Nobel Prize winning philosophers’ and economists like the late Milton Friedman or Gary Becker?

Shouting very loudly, but with a mob-like lack of intelligence is really not the answer.

I bet it makes your skin crawl to know that people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use, whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.

I bet all the money in the world that your ranting is with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.

Ah the old chestnut of gross hypocrisy. I just love uneducated people.
Posted by Daniel06, Thursday, 26 April 2007 11:32:01 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
Daniel06 my post is based on evidence, albeit some anecdotal and some established knowledge. For instance: the link between mental illness and drug usage is well established as is the behaviour of potent amphetamine-based drug users.

”Ice” is a street name for crystal methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a powerful, synthetic stimulant drug. Stimulant drugs speed up the messages going to and from the brain.” Now it is also a vasoconstrictor and hence stimulates the endocrine system, as I stated, so show me where your medical expert would disagree with that

Moreover, here’s an instance of your weighted “evidence “ which is not proven reflective generally of drug users true happiness. You assert unsubstantiated nonsense like : “ I bet it makes your skin crawl to know that people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use, whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.” You could practice what you preach.

Let’s look at some of your “ evidence” here in detail. You say: “I bet it makes it makes your skin crawl…” (where is the intelligent argument in that? I can see the rant, the baseless assumption, the irrelevance, but little else).

You continue with “…people like me have had overwhelmingly positive experiences with drug use…”(Says who –you? What drugs heroin, cocaine, ICE? What do mean positive? Where is your evidence? ) and on you go:… whilst having hugely successful, healthy and happy lives …(How do you possibly know that? Is a drug-affected users perception of happiness the same as a non-user, don’t you think that the very fact that a user relies on a drug for comfort or good feelings suggest a deep settled unhappiness?) and you say: ... - just like 65% of the rest of the Australian public.” (Wouldn’t it have been less weighted to tell me what percentage level it is for illicit drug-users compared to that 65% of Australians?).

You’ve produced no evidence that drug users level of happiness is the same as Australians generally. continued
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 April 2007 12:49:25 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
Continued: Daniel06. I know that Wodak, Feidman and Becker don’t have as much education as me – they are apparently, in my opinion, considering my first hand experience, uneducated or misinformed in some aspects of real life. I respect their intellect and position.

I can’t help notice that you haven’t responded to my main concern re: the example of good laws as a foundation for what is right and wrong. Greg, and your argument, seems to be that the effect of beer is damaging so lets allow illicit drugs to further damage people.

I drink beer - a maximum of a sixpack a time. Max few times a year. A light stubby a night (yeah I know I’m a soft cock). Oldmate told me once grog makes a fool of good men - so I stay sober. Six dollars a can at gigs is robbery anyway. I don’t smoke anything.

Re: Cig/grog claim. You owe me all the money in the world because I didn’t have a beer whilst writing my post as you falsely assumed then claimed(if it is in writing it is a legally binding contract). Hmm. Maybe I’ll just settle for all of your money. Jus’ kidding.

My doctor’s medical opinion is that an occasional beer is actually good for me. Now you get me a Doctor to show me how taking illicit drugs is generally good for the average person.

Re: your claims of hypocrisy. If I was taking hardcore drugs and at the same time condemning them, then you’d have a valid point. Any person with a ounce of education and intellect would have worked that out. Now get some evidence of your own to counter my experience -based and other research- based evidence instead of indulging yourself in a little of your own “passionate ranting”.

You don’t seem too happy to me, sunshine, and even though you make elitist accusations about others “mob-like lack of intelligence” your opinions, I think, nay I have shown, don’t live up to the response you demand from us supposed thick wits whose position GB classes as “stoned stupidity”.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 April 2007 12:56:47 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
Ronnie - I agree with you that we should be trying to imbue our children with morals but the idea that this will happen from a crime and punishment perspective is just not in accordance with reality. You appear to be confusing "legal" and "moral." There are things in this country which are legal - ie, writing to the IAG share registry and offering people below-market prices for their shares, hoping that enough clueless pensioners will sign up to your rip-off scheme - a la David Tweed, the morally bankrupt disgrace that he is. This does not make them moral. By the same token, I will be teaching my children why they shouldn't take certain drugs, and why they need to be careful - NOT so they won't get arrested but so they don't damage themselves irreparably. This idea that people can be prevented from taking/dealing drugs by law enforcement has been proven wrong for generations, nay THOUSANDS of years and it will always be that way -the dopamine reward pathways in the brain will always be more powerful than any legislation.

The very illegality that you champion provides the means by which dealers can profit - decriminalise heroin and their living would disappear overnight. Or keep mouthing the same old "tough on drugs" platitudes that have clearly been utterly ineffective rather than try something else. Bollocks.
Posted by stickman, Friday, 27 April 2007 1:53:34 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
Ronnie Peters,

Let me respond directly to each of your arguments.

1. Link between mental illness and drugs. Please show me how prohibition actually improves this? It is proven fact that prohibition massively increases the likelihood and severity of mental illness through poor quality product, social pressures and contact with the law to name a few. More liberal laws have “proven” to reduce mental problems (i.e. Dutch experience)

2. Ice = meth = really strong = really bad… Again please explain how prohibition has improved the potency of ice? Ice has become a problem under prohibition. It was never a commonly used prior to prohibition. It is a “proven” fact that prohibition leads to the creation of stronger and stronger drugs. (e.g. during 1930’s alcohol prohibition use spirits increased massively)

3. Evidence of your skin crawling… Well you do seem pretty wound up Ronnie boy.

4. Evidence of my/others positive experiences of drugs. Where do I start? I have had some of the most wonderful experiences of my life on drugs (mainly ecstasy and cocaine). Go to any dance event in any major city in the western world and you will see thousands of people having the time of their lives. I have personally known many people to whom drugs have enabled them to become much more confident and open and be able to express feelings they never could before.

5. 65% of the Australian public. It is estimated that 65% of the entire Australian population (up to 80% of 16-40 year olds) have taken an “illicit” substance. Somehow Ronnie I don’t see 65% of people mugging old grannies and ending up drug addicted junkies. The overwhelming majority of drug use is great fun and poses little to no negative effect on anyone.
Posted by Daniel06, Friday, 27 April 2007 6:29:27 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
Continued...

6. You think you are more educated the Alex Wodak… et al. Riiiiiight.

7. The law is a guide to morals. By that logic it is OK to rape women so long as you live in Iran? Well its legal there – must be morally acceptable then hey? And I suppose it was morally correct to exclude indigenous people from citizenship and the vote in Australia prior to 1967? Or that it was morally right to beat women back in the day? Seriously Ronnie this the weakest most ridiculous part of your whole argument.

8. Drinking beer, yet condemning the use of much safer drugs is not hypocritical. Mmmm Ronnie you obviously know how to use the internet Google the pharmacology of many commonly used “illicit” drugs and you will see that many (especially Ecstasy and Marijuana) are massively, hugely, unbelievably safer, less addictive, less harmful to society than alcohol. (hands down a million times over any day of the week.)

I ask you this question Ronnie. Show me one expert, one study, one piece of evidence which proves that prohibition in anyway shape or form is successful. Just one… best of luck.
Posted by Daniel06, Friday, 27 April 2007 6:30:09 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
Daniel06. "Drug treatments and policy must be research based and driven by scientific research." So the reason you haven't supplied any conclusive evidence is because more research is clearly needed. So the experts realise this but you apparently know more.

Stickman how are going to tell your children that it is wrong to take certain drugs if they are legal.

Your point seven actually backs up my argument Daniel06 and blows Stickman away. If you make drugs legal here, then you are saying it is morally acceptable to harm oneself. Daniel06 it wasn’t and isn’t morally acceptable to rape or exclude indigenous people from citizenship that is why indigenous people now vote and it is illegal to rape here. Just because Iran laws are morally corrupt doesn’t mean ours must be. Also, you didn’t bring ethics into it either. I can see why.

I think you both misrepresented my arguments. For instance: Stickman goes on about crime and punishment but I made it clear that users must not be punished. However, I do believe pushers of dangerous drugs should be jailed.

Also Daniel06 I clearly stated that I was more educated “in certain aspects”. A lot of people who do even soft drugs end up mentally ill. A number of people I know and know of are now very ill because of supposed “soft drugs”. I’ve spent enough time in visiting people in a mental institution to know that there is a link.

Maybe you should take more notice of Wodak. I agree with a lot of his ten point plan but remain unconvinced and your attitude and elitist carry on isn't helping. My opinions may be regarded as ridiculous to you but you haven't presented anything sensible yourself.

Now Daniel06 given that drugs aren’t legal in Australia how can we know the long term effects of the legalisation of these drugs. You haven’t got a proper research based and scientific basis to make such firm conclusions. And even Wodak has acknowledged this.
Posted by ronnie peters, Saturday, 28 April 2007 2:35:27 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
Daniel06 says: ” 65% of the Australian public. It is estimated that 65% of the entire Australian population (up to 80% of 16-40 year olds) have taken an “illicit” substance. Somehow Ronnie I don’t see 65% of people mugging old grannies and ending up drug addicted junkies. The overwhelming majority of drug use is great fun and poses little to no negative effect on anyone.”

Daniel06. You are not serious here surely. So what if yuppie Jill puffed on some marijuana once and ticked the box. It is only “estimated” Daniel06. The seriously addicted people I see aren’t too well off. If you look at the QPS web site there is info there on how drug addiction and crime is a problem. And you may be correct that drug addicts wouldn’t need to resort to theft but that is what drugs do to good men and women. Addiction, I think should be treated as mental illness. And pushers dealt with the full force of the law. Just as we prohibit alcohol and cigarette smoking in certain instances we should prohibit drugs because there is no way of governing and ensuring moderation of usage and we’ve enough problems and disrespect for good and sensible laws in society now.

The one thing I do have tension with prohibition- that as individuals what we do to ourselves is our own business. Then again that I have to join the army to blow things up is annoying. I’ve read the Democrats site and still remain unconvinced.
Posted by ronnie peters, Saturday, 28 April 2007 2:53:28 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
Ronnie. I think you are completely missing MY point so I will keep this brief.

You ask "Stickman how are going to tell your children that it is wrong to take certain drugs if they are legal."

As I tried to point out previously, something's being legal does not make it moral or sensible (David Tweed). I will be telling my kids they shouldn't smoke cigarettes (legal) and taking them down to the respiratory ward at the hospital to show them emphysema patients. Get it? Legal but still stupid. Besides, morality is a difficult thing to argue. Whose morality? I prefer more of a consequentialist philosophy but that is a topic for another day.

Your thing about punishing dealers but not users (which is not that different really from the status quo, as punishment is skewed that way, anyway) ignores the reality that the only reason dealers exist is because:
1. the brain's dopamine pathways ensure that drugs of dependence will ALWAYS be with us to a greater or lesser extent
2. the current crime-and-punishment based framework means that supernormal profits accrue to those who are prepared to take the risk to deal (risk premium). In what way exactly is the drug user any less morally culpable in your mind than the dealer anyway? They are just servicing a demand - take away the criminality of the drug use and their living disappears overnight.

You say "If you make drugs legal here, then you are saying it is morally acceptable to harm oneself."

Cigarettes and alcohol harm WAY more people than any illicit drugs do in this country mate, if you have half a brain you will acknowledge that. They are both legal. Are smokers and heavy drinkers immoral? There is, after all, no safe level of consumption of cigarettes.
Posted by stickman, Sunday, 29 April 2007 10:12:24 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
Ronnie,

It is perfectly legal in this country to eat fatty foods to the point of becomming morbidly obese. A condition as deadly and debilitating as any drug addiction. In fact it is now one the (if not the) biggest killers of Australians.

Australian's are amongst the fattest people on earth and its killing us in the thousands.

By your logic we should prohibit the sale of saturated fat, apply the full force of the law to fast food retailers and jail overweight people. And actually by your logic jail healthy people who like to indulge in the odd burger or pizza.

Oh but of course we will keep McDonalds and KFC open just because we have a cultural conection to them - every other food outlet must be hysterically hunted by the mob. (ie just like we do with alcohol and tobacco).

By your logic that is the only way possible to teach kids not to eat fatty foods.

Sounds rediculous doesn't it Ronnie?

Please enlighten me as to how such a rediculous approach is suitable for drug use then. Something which in this context is extemely comparable to fatty food consumption.
Posted by Daniel06, Sunday, 29 April 2007 2:04:51 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
PS Ronnie,

You still haven't told us how prohibition actually solves any of the problems you have listed.
Posted by Daniel06, Sunday, 29 April 2007 2:06:10 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
Stickman/Daniel06 your comparisons are wrong because you’re disregarding obvious differences such as how alcohol has varying degrees of effect,( tiddly, half-pissed, smashed); whereas most addictive drugs are fullon from the let’sgo. Moreover, saturated fats are non-addictive and don’t act on brain receptors. Both can be taken in moderation without any serious long term effects. Drugs also do their primary, secondary, etc. harm in different ways.

I think your moralising is wrong and unethical because you are rationalising away the consequences and drawing clearly weak comparisons. You say that (a) is harmful so I want the right to my own (b) newer more harmful substances - rather than considering the impact on society such as vulnerable people who are more likely to more easily get caught up in the drug culture. You say we have an alcohol/nicotine abuse problem and you want to exacerbate this by introducing more addictions. Most addictive drugs harm much worse than moderate alcohol and even alcohol abuse doesn’t damage brain receptors to anywhere near the extent that addictive drugs do. For instance: regular users of ecstasy can “burn out” certain brains cells in the neurotransmitter process and risk long term chronic depression.

If drugs are legalised, this availability will see them saturate society and become culturally embedded - and then the consequences from the proven harmful effects on users’ health will spread and exacerbate existing problems in healthcare - not to mention the increased drain on the tax system from trying to police or govern the who shemozzle.

I haven’t seen any reports on how the increased usage of drugs will effect things like the road toll; cancer and mental illness numbers; marijuana-caused lung cancer and drug induced mental illness which has recently surfaced from this “soft drug” – not to mention the effects from widespread availability of ecstasy , hallucinogenic drugs (like LSD magic mushrooms), cocaine, amphetamines, tobacco (re: nitric oxide), and opioids. You folk are like the naysayers in relation to global warming. They ramp up the damage by playing on the inconclusively of forecasting and granting research money to those studying their position.
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 30 April 2007 1:16:39 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
We’ve seen the widespread effect of nicotine and despite being exposed to harsh advertising its use is increasing – in must follow that this can happen to families who follow Stickman’s advice on drugs. Once the corporations get their greedy hands on the distribution if you think the entertainment media won’t promote them indirectly, like tobacco and fatty food, then you’re dreaming. Why do you think young girls take up smoking, binge drink and obsess about their looks?

In answer to your disputation of my position re: ensuring our laws reflect our moral and ethical expectations and are not hypocritical - put simply, you’re wrong because of the negative consequences of having hypocritical laws. That you follow David Sweet’s idea that “ something's being legal does not make it moral or sensible” isn’t the point and my observations in relation to Muslim law and Indigenous indicate my agreement - so I’m not sure what you’re point is. I’ll restate: I think that the ideal, and to remain logical, laws must reflect the consequences of the use and abuse of these and proven damaging drugs. I think that this is ethical (because it addresses the rightness or wrongness) and expresses decent moral standard.

Consequentialism is a moral theory anyway. A law can be both ethical (right or wrong re: consequences) and moral. Ethical and moral laws are there for the advancement and protection of democracy, individuals, citizens and society – not drug addicts and drug company’s interests.

Daniel06 you can assert that disagreeable opinions are ridiculous but you haven't shown me how legalising drugs which may saturate society and become culturally embedded is going to be less harmful than prohibition.

You say “Cigarettes and alcohol harm WAY more people than any illicit drugs.” A consequence of legalising them may see this situation reversed. Are smokers and heavy drinkers immoral? No just unwise. Suppliers of tobacco, harmful drugs and people who ply alcoholics with booze are immoral.

Stickman Re: dopamine pathways. Most of the population seem happy enough without relying on illicit drugs
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 30 April 2007 1:48:49 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
Ronnie,

Firstly, in the Netherlands personal use of drugs is virtually legal (amoungst other fantastic government measure to deal with drug use).

The level of drug use in Hollan is much lower than in Australia! (or the US, or most other countries perusing this crazy ‘war on drugs’).

Therefore your claims are actually ludicrous as stated. You are ill-informed and hysterical to claim that legalisation would lead to a massive increase in usage, when the fact is in countries with liberal drug laws usage rates a substantially lower and the usage they have is substantially safer – read the facts.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_volume2.pdf
Posted by Daniel06, Monday, 30 April 2007 2:26:57 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
Continued...

Secondly, Almost any activity you can do in life has an element of risk involved.

Your proposition that people like me must “prove” that drug use has ‘zero risk’ before any consideration of legalizing them is preposterous.

Are you honestly suggesting that we prohibit every single activity that poses anything more than ‘zero risk’?

Goodbye cars, goodbye cycling, goodbye fatty food, goodbye sex, goodbye child-birth, goodbye walking… you get the point. I am sure just sitting in a chair has an element of risk involved - why not prohibit that?

I implore you to read the following document (compiled by a senior barrister).

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_PA_1Nov93_Cannabis_Law_in_Queensland.pdf

If you can honestly read the attached document and still promote the “law-and-order” approach to drug policy then clearly, in the words of Mr Peter Cleeland (Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee of the National Crime Authority):

you… “just [don’t] understand or [you] are either an idiot or a liar. More than 57 percent of people up to the age of 25 have experimented or have been exposed to [illicit drugs] - that means more than 50 percent of Australians are criminals. The law is a joke when it is ignored by that many people.”

Finally, Ronnie your overview of Ecstasy use is grossly ill-informed. Over the last 10-15 years literally hundreds of thousands of Australians have taken Ecstasy. Only a minute fraction of those people have come to physical or psychological harm - fact.

My personal experience is one of regular moderate use over 15 years with absolutely no adverse effects (the same goes for every other person I have ever met who has enjoyed the clubbing lifestyle at some point or another). My doctor has confirmed that I am substantially more healthy than average.

I also attribute some (possibly a lot) of my self-confidence and openness to this. This very confidence and openness provides me an enriched life, a successful business and amazing relationships with family and friends. All of which is rather enjoyable – why do you think the majority of people do it?
Posted by Daniel06, Monday, 30 April 2007 2:29:37 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
Damiel06. The fact is Netherlands has not legalised drugs. The harder stuff and even cannabis are still illegal. Cannabis legislation has reclassified it. There is a big difference between what you are asking for which is lawful use of drugs and drug prevention programs implemented in the more progressive European countries.

I don’t, and researchers, don't think it is wise to take statistics at face value.

For instance: You are correct that in 2001 (long time ago) 6.1 percent of Dutch folk used cannabis as did 13.3 percent of Australians (2004). It is plausible to argue that Dutch coffee shops who have permission to sell five grams a time don’t record all their sales. According to EMCCDDA report, more cannabis users are turning up in drug treatment centres. The report notes that the highest proportion of cannabis users needing treatment is Germany and Nederland. The report says this may be because home-grown hydroponic cannabis (stronger) is more common in Nederland and indeed, it’s estimated that half of Nederland’s supply is locally grown.

I think it doesn’t follow that such high numbers would come from such small population of six percent of users unless you’re suggesting that cannabis is more dangerous than you wrongly believe (EMCCDDA evidence conflicts with your beliefs). It could be that home growers are not registered or accounted for.

The report noted that “Further research is urgently required on the extent to which such cannabis users develop the type of health or social problems that would lead them to seek help.” So your assessment of the situation in liberal European countries is questionable.

You just have compare the Beattie government reports of how ubute
the state of QLD’s hospital system is to reality to see this.

Also Nederland and Belgium produce most ecstasy so maybe supply is less likely to be recorded. According to the document’s researchers: “Causal links between a policy and the drug are difficult to draw. The picture is often confounded by socio economic and broader societal factors”. I still hold that the law must reflect the harmfulness of illicit drugs.
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 1:48:45 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
Daniel06 you still haven't told us how legalising drugs minimises harm to society.

Re: the harmfulness of esctasy the experts disagree with the drug pushers.

For instance: "Serotonin and Dopamine play a part in regulating body temperature. MDMA users may
ignore the fact their body is overheating, because the messages of discomfort are
prevented from being transmitted. High numbers of heat-related casualties and fatalities
associated with the use of ecstasy are due to this effect. This appears to be the most common
risk so far that is associated with ecstasy use.

People can develop tolerance to the pleasurable effects of ecstasy. This means that more ecstasy
is needed to get the same effects as before. Although unclear whether physical dependence can
develop, psychological dependence is a risk.
Those who become accustomed to partying and socialising while on ecstasy may feel unable to
communicate, make friends, or enjoy themselves without using MDMA or a similar drug.
Counselling and support may help with this dependency.
Extreme reactions to ecstasy are sporadic and impossible to predict and appear unrelated to the
amount taken. Reactions depend on a number of uncertain factors and relate to the individual’s
reaction at that particular time and place.
People who should never use MDMA or similar drugs include those with high blood pressure,
a heart condition, diabetes, asthma, epilepsy, depression or other mental illness. Extreme
reactions can include convulsions, mental disturbances, blood clotting and kidney failure as well
as hyperthermia - all of which can prove fatal. Regular users have also been reported to risk some
liver damage. Some people appear to be more susceptible to the ill-effects of ecstasy.
Long-term risks are relatively unknown as yet, and research is continuing. Laboratory research
with animals has pointed to the possibilities of long-term brain damage due to destruction of brain
cells that produce serotonin and ultimately failure of the brain to produce serotonin. Health
professionals have also reported some users continue to have psychiatric problems including
delusions, depression, panic attacks, disorientation and depersonalisation. In a few cases, these
symptoms have been permanent, or lasted weeks or months."

Source:
http://www.fds.org.au/pdf/FactSheet7_Ecstasy.pdf
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 2:34:38 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
ronnie - lots of maybes and suppositions there, but no real argument against the premise that prohibition has failed utterly, and that therefore a new and radical approach is warranted, i.e. legalisation and regulation, similar to other drugs (including alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs). It's hard to imagine how a policy could fail more dismally and obviously than current approaches to drug use and abuse in our society.

And what does "ubute" mean?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 8:12:02 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
Ronnie,

I am starting to think that perhaps you are just blindly ranting. I could hysterically rant about the dangers of a million other activities scientifically proven to be far more risky than drugs. No one in there right mind would suggest prohibiting them in a free democratic society.

For the 10,000,000th time please tell us how Prohibition actually addresses any of your supposed claims? See you just can't do it can you? - why don't you add another 3 risks your hysterical list instead?

Even if most illicit drugs were remotely as dangerous as you hysterically claim Prohibition has proven to be the most useless, costly and ineffective policy in even denting the use/abuse of said drugs - let alone controlling them. And has massively curtailed civil liberties and created a black market the size of the petrol industry in Australia. Wow what a resounding success!

Only a total moron would continue to support a policy which is ignored by between 60-80% of the population, cost billions and billions of dollars, seen drug usage rates explode, creat a massive criminal black market, corrupt police forces and officials and massively increase the harms associated with what was once a relatively benign personal liberty.

Your continued blind ignorance to the mountains of evidence, expert testimonials and resurch is really making you come across as quite idiotic.

I am so glad that I don't actually know anyone as blindly ignorant as you in real-life. It is just scary...
Posted by Daniel06, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 11:13:01 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
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2563/25633101.jpg

I suppose you are going to tell me that you know more than the British Science and Technoogy Committee, hey Ronnie boy?

You enjoy your "healthy" beer. I'll stick to those killer pills hey?

PS the ratings the above table are for the illicit street versions of the drugs tested. Hospital grade versions would rate as substantially safer.
Posted by Daniel06, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 11:39:53 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
I've said my piece on another thread re my preference for harm minimisation as opposed to prohibition.

I want to address Daniel specifically here. These kind of discussions often get taken up with a discussion on the safety or harmlessness of hallucigenic drugs and this is used as a justification for changing from prohibition. Rest assured, that for every opinion on this subject there is an opposing opinion.

In a way it is immaterial whether hallucigenic drugs are a good thing or not, or are dangerous or not. Drug usage, from alcohol, to cigarettes, to prescription drugs, to illegal drugs all cause harm to society to greater and lesser degrees.

And yes, there are many things humans do that involve risks, but that is not really at issue here either. Though, just on that note, there are some risks we do make laws for to minimise them. Like wearing helmets on motor bikes, seat belts in cars.

This debate is about how we can deal with the harmful effects of illegal drug use most effectively. The involvement of crime is one. The dreadful consequences of addiction is another.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 2:30:19 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
Daniel06 More than eighty thousand people needed drug treatment, in Australia, 2003/4.

I’d like to see research done on a few thousand “uneducated “ folk who don’t touch drugs and have a few beers and follow healthy-living guidelines compared to a few thousand drug addicts or users. Why isn’t the Civil Liberty mob considering the harm that drugs do to the harm-reducing, law-abiding wider community rather than supporting those who disregard laws made for all our benefit?

You’ve offered no evidence to show that prohibition hasn’t helped to curtail drug abuse. You assert that there is no improvement in the drug problem after 30 years. That is more inherent in the problem (its addictiveness, lawlessness and uncontrolled nature) than the solution. Where is your evidence that law enforcement hasn’t helped?

You look back to prohibition in US; but that situation too supports my concern because grog and its culture quickly saturated the USA. Will criminals market harder stuff once the dopamine receptors desensitise to teasers. Your position re: USA actually backs keeping harmful drugs illegal.

In the eighties when stricter tobacco laws were introduced some tobacco farmers planted a more positive product like macadamia trees instead. Now in Afghanistan there is about 113,000 hectares of poppies (for opiates). Destroy it and plant a food crop instead of feeding the harmful selfish habits of drug users. Big on social justice/liberty? How about the harm done to families who’d be free to have a better life if food was cheaper? Your “evidence” hasn’t considered wider ramifications.

The biased moralising (no consequential arguments just assertion) from those who salg those in disagreement as” idiots , liars, morons, hysterical etc. ” leaves the far-right Bible bashers for dead.

The law is no a joke when it‘s ignored by criminals and self harmers. Those who ignore the law are making a joke of (themselves) and the wider community’s right to a safe and happy environment.

I’m up for alternative lawful methods and laws supported with firm law enforcement.

The law must confirm drugs are seriously harmful to youngsters. Considering the consequences anything else is irresponsible.
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 3:11:18 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
CJ Morgan Lots of mays and suppositions from those that wish to legalise more dangerous drugs too. Not to mention the downright contradictory nonsense, if not hypocritical, nonsense, re; evidence and consistency. There’s no real argument for the premise that prohibition has failed utterly.

This is a dishonest rhetorical trick that drug legalisers are playing on the “uneducated”. You’ve keep people on the back foot because one can only guess at the consequences had drugs been made freely available 30 years ago. Where is your conclusive evidence that you won’t make things worse?

I’ve already said that a better approach is warranted. However, legalisation that reflects the dangers of use must remain the centre piece.

Maybe you’ve been taking too much notice of Daniel06’s slag and not what I’m saying. Maybe you need to imagine what will happen (and wonder why some effort isn’t being put into investigating and understanding this side) if a legalise- knowingly –harmful- products policy fails. I has the potential to fail much more dismally and do unimaginable harm than even our current approaches.

The experts use plenty of maybe and suppositions also because it is almost impossible to be intellectually honest and draw definite conclusions from such limited and debatable evidence. Both sides of the debate can only speculate and forecast without any real certainty. When I’ve said maybe, no one has countered with a sensible argument.

The pro-drug lobby simply claimed the intellectual (and moral) high ground just like other religious zealots. Like the experts say - more research is needed. So when Daniel06 et al present conclusive evidence that prohibition hasn’t helped curtail the drug problem; that legalising drugs won’t lead to widely culturally embedding drug culture; won’t be harming people who would have otherwise not gotten involved with drugs because of their career and respect for the law; won’t drain funds from good honest families; and end up doing more harm than good to users; creating more problems by adding to the existing problems that just letting users go for it are likely to cause - I’ll reconsider my position.
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 3:21:34 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
Lots of wild guesses going on here. The only thing that I think most agree on is that prohibition is a waste of time and resources. Much better devoted to health and education.

Do remember though even health risks and all the education in the world will not stop someone who wants a thrill or just to try something others have said is great.

Anyone here ever had a great time on drugs? I certainly have. But all these drugs have a tolerance level and the common theme is that you will never achieve the same level of thrill or whatever it is you experience that first time.

I love Daniel's first post where he concludes by asking who wants to prohibit prohibition. Nice one Daniel, I know what you mean but it's just the same line isn't it?

No one also has responded to Robby's statement that all thoughts and feelings you have are actually chemically inspired. Either naturally or artificially. He's right.

How many can recall the first cigarette, the first drink, the first stone/trip and so on? All, as that experience is vivid and stays there as a tempter.

I guess the thing I find most ridiculous about this issue is that most often the people who want to ban something have never tried it. So fear is the key as they say, as it is in politics. Scare people enough and they will follow you if you promise to protect them (always a lie).

Ronnie, please just list the Commandments you use so we know what is wrong and right. Long list I'd guess. But please do. Multiple posts as usual?
Posted by pegasus, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 3:58:31 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
Ronnie,

It seems that you are pretty set in your opinions and there is little that any amount of expert evidence is going to do to change your mind.

The fact that you think prohibition is a successful policy when even the people who originally set it up now believe it to be an abject failure is a true insight into the scale of ignorance that exists in society.

Your blindness to the facts is the very definition of ignorance.

The fact is Ronnie by this time next week hundreds of thousands of pills, budds, lines and hits will have been taken by a massive proportion of the population with zero regard for the law. The only difference that prohibition has made to those people is that the price they pay for their drugs is inflated and the quality possibly compromised.

The drug dealers will be that much richer, the government that much poorer and the chances of all of us being a victim of crime are multiplied even further.

I just love your idea of success...
Posted by Daniel06, Thursday, 3 May 2007 1:46:07 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
Daniel06.
This league chart, which at first glance appears to show that alcohol causes similar harm to amphetamines and ecstasy is an example of the weak and inconlusive “evidence” presented to force the will of illicit drug users on society.

League charts have come under attack lately from experts in England. . League charts are not regarded as anything but a snapshot. For instance: league charts can’t show trends or long-term effects of addictive substances.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7329/95

“League tables provoke anxiety and concern among health service providers for several reasons, including concerns over adjustment for case mix and the role of chance in determining their rank “

Nevertheless, the charts actually confirm my position and show the weak evidence on which Daniel06 want to abolish prohibition aspect of current harm-reduction measures.
.
According to your expert figures - that you sent me to when it backed your argument and that you’ve since apparently changed your mind on because it blows your other argument that nearly everybody does illicit drugs- under 5% of Britain’s population do illicit drugs and about 20% of those do amphetamines. It must follow that less than 2% of the population do the same damage as those many fold Britain’s who drink alcohol regularly and occasionally. Adjustments aren’t indicated are arbitrary anyway and open to dispute. Thus you’ve failed to present reliable evidence and indeed, shows that ecstasy to be many times more dangerous than first glance indicates.

Maybe that is the real reason that alcohol isn’t a (b) class substance . As far as cigarettes are concerned well I know that the push there is manipulative and plays on the self interest of other addicted people. It would be unfair for these people to allow illicit drugs while they indulge in harmful drugs themselves. I think, to be morally and intellectually honest, according to your “evidence”, cigarettes should be reclassified to (b) or torch the crops.

Where’s the intellectual honesty when you don’t mention things like the physical restraints of administration. “Jilly’s a bit down take the smokes away in case she overdoses?” Hmmm.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 4 May 2007 1:43:10 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
Ronnie,

As always your interpretation of the data is commensurate with your complete lack of intellect.

Please read the following link which explains the science behind the table I posted earlier. You will see that the above table is actually calculated to factor into it the dissproportionate use of say alcohol and tobacco over drugs like LSD etc.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf

Ronnie I don't beleive that prohibiting even the worse drugs on the table has had any effect what so ever. My decision in life not to take Heroine has absolutely nothing to do with its legal status at all.

I simply posted it to blow your crazy "drug laws are based on the harm caused by drugs" claim right out of the water. Clearly if your claim were true then alcohol and tobacco would be illegal would they not?

Just like prohibiting alcohol was an abysmal failure and recognised by all today as insanly stuppid. The experts are all in agreement that the exact same applies to other potentially harmful drugs.

The fact is Ronnie boy despite various studies providing slight differences in data - the overwhealming, resounding, unequivocal conclusion from the experts points squarely at the failure of prohibition.

So what if one study says alcohol is 10 times worse than ecstacy and the other says its 5 times worse. Its still substantially worse and yet its legal and you drink it!

Next time you sip your hypocritical beer just think Ronnie people are put in jail for taking something scientifically proven as much safer - a situation which is grossly unjust.
Posted by Daniel06, Friday, 4 May 2007 3:10:27 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
RE: pro-drug addiction lobby’s deceptions.
Professor Leslie Iversen, a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences group considering drug policy, said the new system was a "landmark paper".
He said: "It is a real step towards evidence-based classification of drugs."
He highlighted the fact that one person a week in the UK dies from alcohol poisoning, while less than 10 deaths a year are linked to ecstasy use.
Iversen et al have a cheek accusing anti-drug folk of scare tactics.
Maybe Professor Iversen should have honestly compared ecstasy users’ (subset of wider-community of about 500,000 –small percentage of total population) with the many times larger group of alcohol drinkers that have a much larger percentage of people who don’t die every year compared to the percentage of illicit drug users who do die.
Like Daniel06’s other comparisons, such as comparing the risks and benefits of cycling to the established harmful effects and negatives of drug addiction, we get more misleading “evidence”.
The harmful effects of drug usage are established and with new brain scan technology more serious effects may be discovered. For instance: London’s Institute of Psychiatry showed that even small amounts of cannabis can trigger symptoms similar to schizophrenia, paranoia, hallucinations, delusions and other effects associated with mental illness.
It’s a misnomer to say that law enforcement hasn’t curtailed the harm of illicit drugs. In Britian the experts argue otherwise.
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker said: "We have no intention of reviewing the drug classification system.
"Our priority is harm reduction and to achieve this we focus on enforcement, education and treatment."
He said there had been "unparalleled investment" of £7.5 billion since 1998, which had contributed to a 21% reduction in overall drug misuse in the last nine years and a fall of 20% in drug related crime since 2004.
But he added: "The government is not complacent and will continue to work with all of our partners to build on this progress."
We must “focus on enforcement, education and treatment”. Drug legalisation push is harming authorities’ efforts. Drug-use prohibition/reduction is true harm reduction.
Posted by ronnie peters, Saturday, 5 May 2007 5:29:36 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
Ronnie,

1 person a week dies in the UK from alcohol poisoning-yes. You forgot to mention that almost 162 more die each week as a direct result of other alcohol related problems (this is a substance you admit yourself to taking).

According to the above study the death rate is 1 in every 500,000 users per year for ecstacy (that makes it safer than sitting at home watching TV).

If your claim were true that alcohol is substantially safer than ecstacy and the death rate was say 1 for every million 1,000,000 (thats 50% safer than e) then the population of British drinkers would need to be 162,000,000. Even if alcohol was as safe as ecstacy the drinking population would have to be 81,000,000.

Somehow given that the population of the UK is only 60,000,000 I think your claim has been shattered Ronnie boy. Stop talking total and utter lies.

The stats below demonstrate that the harm ratio for alcohol is substantially higher than 1 in 500,000.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

Given that I have just totally proven that alcohol is more dangerous than ecstacy surely you have to admit that prohibiting ecstacy on the basis of "harm" is factually, morally and socially incorrect.

How do you live with yourself knowing that people like you are keeping young, heathly, people in jail for doing something far safer than what you do? Giving bright young university students criminal records, forcing young girls in their 20's to deal with criminals and gangsters to buy pills which are safer than beer (which you yourself drink)

Wake up Ronnie you and those who share your views will be remembered for promoting the most immoral, socially destructive policy in contemporary society. Stop being so ignorant - do you really support such a grossly unjust law?
Posted by Daniel06, Saturday, 5 May 2007 12:40:34 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
Full points for effort daniel, but something tells me that ronnie's stubborn principals are inpenetrable. This is ok in itself, individuals can believe whatever crap they choose, but unfortunately his attitude is aligned with the majority of our society, who choose to put their trust in authority, as this gives people that sense of order that we all crave.

They assume these rules are universal, and of course this isn't the case. We only need to look beyond our own borders, to the Netherlands for example, where magic mushrooms are correctly identified as less toxic than paracetamol, and the populations percentage of pot smokers in considerably *less* than here. There are no significantly greater rates of death or health problems or crime problems than any other westernised country under their laws. And admittedly without bothering to research, one can assume their prisons are far less crowded with the unjustly convicted. So it is correct to state that our position regarding harm minimisation is not theoretical, rather it is in fact proven.

Harvested my plant last week. Only got about a quarter ounce out of it - still, nice to reap the benefits of your own garden..
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 4:30:04 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
i have read most of the articles with profound interest as i am a uni student currently undertaking alcohol & drugs as an elective.i have read some very interesting points of which i tend to agree on some and others disagree.having had some extensive experience with drugs on the outside looking in i am not sure if legalising marijuana is the answer.from a law perspective wld be less trouble on the justice system but who wants to sit with someone who is"stoned" & cant hold an intelligent conversation.alcohol does pretty much the same thing too.i dont think there is a right or wrong answer.to be able to treat a problem, first u need to know what the problem is and there a lot of addicts who dont appear to know the problem as to why they use in the first place.
Posted by nellie, Saturday, 26 May 2007 11:25:52 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
Nellie,

I'd hardly judge the basis upon which a personal liberty should be prohibited on how intellectual the participants in "said" personal liberty are whilst participating in "said" activity.

I for one am hardly intellectual in the throws of sexual lust, yet I would dare say that prohibiting such an act would be considered rather rediculous.

You claim that that legalising MJ may not be the answer? The answer to what? And even if you knew what supposed issue legalising/prohibiting you are claiming to solve please answer this:-

How does prohibiting MJ (or any other drug) actually solve anything? I have never claimed that legalising drugs will eliminate all drug related harm - I simply claim that all evidence suggests that all we can hope for is a minimizing of drug related harm and that prohibition actually increases drug harm.

Even if drugs were legal (as they should be) we would still see a certain level of drug related harm, albeit based on the evidence from countless experts that so called harm would be massively reduced.
Posted by Daniel06, Sunday, 27 May 2007 1:35:23 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
All thinking people have come to the conclusion that the “war on certain drugs” must now admit its failures so we may return to the drug and crime culture we had in the 50s and early 60s before prohibition.

I have been involved with the drug re-legalization lobby for a number of years and have spoken to numerous people on both sides of the fence from constituencies within NSW, Vic and WA, and un-surprisingly, there are more people who are pro re-legalization than I was initially led to believe.

The only noisy opposition we face is an army of sheltered politics academics and misinformed religious followers who base all their arguments on the secondhand information presented to them by uninformed teachers, urban legends and media. We remain confident as the majority of the medical and psychiatric professions have (and continue to) share our view since prohibition began in Australia in 1967, (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1967/31.html) along with the Art and Alternative Spiritual community.

The Movement does not need to continue this conversation with militant “hearsayists” as people will remain divided on the issue no matter how black and white it actually is to people like us who have lived and worked around the drug culture all our lives, and know all our facts first hand. (Psychiatric Nurses, Mental Hospital Councilors, and anyone else who has had their eyes open for the last 50 years)

As the argument against criminalization is beyond doubt for many people, I am not going to add any more facts into your conversation but my point is, do you want to DO anything about it?

It is political suicide for a political party with majority vote in The House Of Representatives to bring this to the table for solving as most ALP and Liberal Party constituencies contain a majority of voters who still believe the current regime of criminalization should continue, and convincing enough people otherwise will take A VERY LONG TIME.

Unfortunately direct action is the only option if we wish to stop this barbaric post cold war relic from thieving us of another 50 years of freedom.
Posted by johnburns, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 7:46:17 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
Nice one Johnburns, couldn't agree more.

Is there a link to somewhere that we can join to lend our support to decriminalisation? Also, I was disinclined to wade through that massive treaty that you posted a link to, what is the gist?

cheers
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 31 May 2007 11:45:45 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
John Burns, Stickman,

I agree too. Please tell me where I can go to take direct action. I am willing and able to contribute my time and energies to promoting the cause to end this insane policy of prohibition.

I am a paid member of Family and Friends For Drug Law Reform http://www.ffdlr.org.au/ and also the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation http://home.vicnet.net.au/~adlrf/ and the Australia Institute http://www.tai.org.au/

Whilst I have absolute admiration and support for these organisations and the work they do I feel that a more direct approach would be something I would love to be invovled in.
Posted by Daniel06, Thursday, 31 May 2007 9:10:13 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
Thankyou stickman and Daniel60 for your support.

To stickman in regards to Australian Treaty Series 1967 No 31, most prohibition advocates do not realize that this is what our current laws are based on. A united nations treaty proposed by cold war USA which predates the kind of drugs we are talking about in public debate now. (so called "designer drugs" ice, ecstasy etc.) I only referenced it to outline the ancient view that this problem can somehow be squashed by law. We should know better as upstanding members of the global community in 2007. The old approach would simply be laughable if it didn't concern the welfare of my family and friends.

To those who wish to join the movement against this atrocity of human freedom please visit and support the organizations just posted by Daniel06.

For those who believe direct action needs to be taken, please register your support at www.re-legalization.com (you will also see where I plagiarized most of my argument from)
Posted by johnburns, Monday, 4 June 2007 8:33:50 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

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