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 > ‘Tough on Drugs’ is inherently flawed > Comments

‘Tough on Drugs’ is inherently flawed : Comments

By Kathryn Daley, published 10/9/2007

The zero tolerance approach to drug abuse pushes the issue behind closed doors, further forcing it into the hands of criminals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Shelley “You need to read some of the literature on drug use in Australia before you make the sweeping statements.”

I have read plenty but more importantly, have experienced things directly, not just “second hand”, from books or TV.

I have smoked marijuana in the past. That was back in the early 1970’s, when we were all young and stupid and did not have much to “read” regarding the dangers of brain damage from those drugs.

The first of my friends who died of an overdose did so almost 40 years ago.

I still mourn him but unfortunately he was not the only one.

I have experienced people who have decided to share their “psychotic episodes” with me. I have seen reasonable people turn into useless, self-centered and selfish tossers who think nothing of stealing from their family to feed their addiction.

I spoke earlier about someone murdered by a drug crazed lunatic. Well, I have also watched how that act not only ended the boys life but how it devastated his family, leaving his mother questioning whether there was any point to life itself.

I suggest anyone who wants to challenge my view, you are free to do so but don’t bother with the platitudes, righteous indignation or fatuous opinions like

“most of whom are young people who will most likely their cease drug use before they experience problems.”

I note “most” acknowledges that some will not cease their drug use but go on to suffer and inflict their “problems” not just on themselves but on everyone else they come into contact with.

Teopaez - Check the history books, there is a reason why alcohol and tobacco were not made illegal, the way opiates, cocaine and now crack is.

TurnRightThenLeft “those who are pushing zero tolerance don't know what they're talking about by definition.”

Cheap words.

I am not a politician, being popular has never been a barometer of being right.

Tolerate drug dealers and you can kiss you and your childrens’ futures goodbye. Anyone who thinks being a psychotic looney is sustainable, may as well die now.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 10 September 2007 5:56:44 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
Desipis: That's my point. As it is now, everytime young people go to a nightclub or party, drugs are freely available. Most kids know how to get drugs if they so desire. If users and dealers had something to fear from prosecution then they may not be willing to be so public about their activities. It would indeed be driven underground and anyone wanting to procure or experiment with drugs would actively have to seek them out, as opposed to having them shoved in their face as they do now.

No one says that zero tolerance of drugs means zero tolerance of the problems they produce. They are two separate issues.

My day-to-day dealing with people has shown me that the ones who are keen for a relaxed attitude to illegal drugs and drug taking are the same ones who scream for more stringent steps to be taken in relation to junk food and smoking. How come fat kids are the victims of themselves and their parents, but druggies are victims of society?
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 10 September 2007 6:30:36 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
Col Rouge your diatribe has so many sweeping generalisations and you miss the point so comprehensively I've no hesitation in labelling your argument hopelessly flawed.

1) Not all drugs are the same, though you speak of them as if they are.

2) Psychotic episodes happen. They're rare. I also have known users and what you describe is the exception not the norm.
You can't simply chalk everthing up to 'psychotic loonies.'

3) What you're saying is entirely beside the point. The article and the responses are all about limiting drugs. It's all coming from the same side here.
The question being asked is whether or not zero tolerance policies are really effective in limiting drug use. You've not addressed any of that in the slightest. You've made no argument as to why zero tolerance policies are more effective.

As far as 'executing' second time offenders, you make an idiotic argument, with no realisation of how widespread this issue really is, and the reality on the ground. Your plan would have Australia putting such a wide variety of people to death it's sickening.

Evidently you've had tough experiences with drug users in the past. That is unfortunate and I wish you hadn't had to suffer. But it has clouded reason with emotional rhetoric.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 10 September 2007 8:10:23 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
Col

You are using chicken and egg logic. You call for the execution of drug traffickers, but such a call simply equates a human life with a quantity of drugs. Humans, being what they are, will ensure that the transaction occurs on a regular basis, both for the supplier and end user. It is a great way to turn human lives into money, but does it solve anything?

I believe that all options should be properly evaluated. Surely the best solution is what works best, and how can anyone intrinsically know what that solution is?

Addiction is a complex issue in society. Many a politician would support a "tough on drugs" approach because that is what the public wants, yet how many would support a referendum on poker machines?
Posted by Fester, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:32:23 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
Well col rouge if we are going to execute drug pushers, lets start with the tobacco companies the biggest killer of drug addicts, and move on to achohol the second biggest and then make a move on prescription drugs, the executioner is getting busy here and where will he stop.
The reason we have the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror" is simple, politicians long ago discovered that fear wins votes, so we had Prohibition in USA in the 1920's, then "The Red Terror", "The Yellow Peril", and so on, Hitler used this to great effect in the 1930's.
John Howard is a past master at it and George Bush could barely keep the smirk off his face after 9/11 as his adviser's had told him play this one right and you will win a second term.
And you col rouge are the sucker that falls for it every time.LOL.
Posted by alanpoi, Monday, 10 September 2007 11:59:03 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
Col

How do you define these drug dealers you want to execute? Is a fifteen year old who buys some marijuana for him/her and his/her friends because they ask for it, someone you want to execute? Because that could easily be your or my child.

Drug use/abuse is not a simple problem and it doesn’t have a simple answer, much as we would all like it to be so. I understand your fear for your children, as I share it myself, but zero-tolerance is not the answer. Criminalising the behaviour of children is counterproductive and draconian as well.

Some people seem to have the impression that adult drug dealers hang around the school gate waiting to entrap their children. But almost invariably, children/teenagers come into contact with drugs through their peers. The person most likely to be encouraging your child to take drugs is their best friend. Making these young people accountable by throwing them in jail won’t work; it will only help ensure that they continue making bad choices.

Much of the advertising which seeks to dissuade kids from taking drugs are counterproductive. The worst –case-scenario type ads are often directly at odds with the experiences of kids and their peers. They see that their friends have taken ‘ecstasy’, and had fun and not been killed and completely write off the totally valid message the authorities are trying to get across.

America has zero tolerance programs on drugs. It hasn’t had any success. Much of Asia executes drug traffickers, whilst pardoning murderers and rapists. It hasn’t even dented the flow of drugs coming from that area.

The most degenerate members of our community are generally those afflicted with alcoholism. This drug destroys many, many more lives than illegal drugs ever will, yet we continue to hide our head in the sand.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one. The more we make it a criminal issue the more harm we are going to do. The answer is in quality education and professional treatment. Take away the drug takers and drug dealers become irrelevant.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:04:13 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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