Nice article, Mr Mendes, which sensibly and dispassionately outlines the main elements of the Greens' policies towards illicit drugs, and of the cynical and tawdry efforts by some conservative parties to score political points by misrepresenting them.

Undoubtedly, this thread will attract comments of that ilk from some of our 'usual suspects' who support such dishonest political tactics, or who believe despite all the available evidence that recreational drug use can be controlled by the enforcement of draconian laws.

I completely agree.

I've often thought that the Government that can get the message right and decriminalise drugs - or have them controlled similar to how methadone is, will never lose an election.

With all the cash they'd save on fighting 'crime', i.e, desperate junkies wanting their next fix (who do do terrible things to get it, but wouldn't if it was made available to them) they could fund education, health, and still have billions left over.

Drugs do harm people, kill people, ruin families, ruin lives, and all the rest of it.

If, however, the only negative associated with using drugs was the actual using of the drug, not all the nonsense to get it, all those who one hurts in that process, and so on, it would be easier to remedy.

One wouldn't go to prison, get even more involved in a sordid crowd, hey, that crowd would no longer exist.

There could be stringent, really stringent, rules for heroin takeaways (where do I sign up!) and the stuff that goes on with some on methadone selling their t/a's wouldn't occur, they wouldn't sell their smack to anyone!

No more needles in parks, kids playing in dangerous streets. The only criminals left would be those who kill for crimes of passion. The scumbag dealers would be taken out in a flash, which is the first thing needed - many former and current Police Commissioners the world over say the same.

Long live the dream anyway...

I totally agree with Benjamin. If what is being done isn't working why persist with it. Why not try something different? What is there to loose? If it doesn't work the former strategy/s can always be returned to.

Bloody politicians; “spinning” the facts to suit their own agenda/s that are overwhelmingly to get into and or to remain in power, nothing more, nothing less.

Oo roo,

Bucko

No doubt the Greens want millions spent on harm minnimisation programs which don't work while the elderely spend years wanting to get a little medical attention. Why not give priority to those who choose to abuse their bodies and blame everyone else. Already many of the needles given out for free end up on beaches and in parks. Some diabetics can hardly afford them and yet have to pay for them. Talk about warped priorities.

is there any chance that drugs policy is driven by campaign contributions? a radical suggestion, i know- oz politicians have a world wide reputation for wisdom, ethics and dispassionate pursuit of the public interest.

on the other hand, they take massive support from the hotel/alcohol lobby. the stress of getting elected might cause the weaker, newer politician to deviate from the path of virtue. just a possibility, please tell me i'm wrong, i yearn to apologize to the politicians guild and renew my total submission to our guardian angels.

Somebody please answer me this.

Alocohol and tobacco are terrible scourges of society. Through circumstances of history they have come to be legally available and in some form of another, will almost certainly remain so, as much as society would be better off if they were less widely available.

So why would we then legalise or decriminalise MORE dangerous drugs, some much more highly addictive. We made a mistake with alcohol and tobacco, why go further?

It seems to me the mungbean-eating types in The Greens are driven simply by an annoyance that their "mind expanding" drug of choice, marijuana, is not legally available while the scourge of the suburbanites, alcohol, is.