This article is spot on. Unfortunately the general public remains swamped by prohibitionist propaganda. Lately it has taken the form of dinky little reductive 'studies' which SET OUT to find new harms (and headlines) around cannabis. Time and again, however, broadbased population studies don't back them up. Long-term cannabis users simply don't have shrunken hippocampuses, teeth falling out, psychoses, violent episodes in hospital emergency units or frequent car accidents -- not in significantly greater numbers than the general population at least. And Sydney University data from 1973 show cannabis then was about as strong as it is now, despite US government propaganda to the contrary. Yet the media print this rubbish uncritically.

We need an organised lobby group to counter the prohibitionist groups which were funded by the Howard government. I expose some of the prohibitionist tripe on my blog but it has a limited readership. See:
http://kingscrosstimes.blogspot.com/2008/07/evidence-prohibitionists-and.html

The only way I can see such a body happening is through private sponsorship. It wouldn't need a lot, either. Any ideas?

On the authors argument we should legalise paedophile. We have harsh penalties (probably not harsh enough) and yet their has been a huge increase (no doubt due to our pervert industry) and other factors. On his argeument we should go soft on these criminals.

The author is also ignorant or deceitful in his summation of cannabis use. As someone who has spent a fair bit of time with people suffering from Schizophrenia I can assure you most of them were dope smokers.

Runner,

Actually pedophilia is a crime with real victims. Who are the victims of drug use, besides the user themselves? If you want to compare crimes then compare like with like. There are other victimless crimes, like prostitution for example. There is simply NO commonality between pedophilia and drug use. In fact it is highly demeaning to the victims of pedophilia (a remarkable percentage of whom are victims of the church) to compare their real suffering with the mutual consent that is involved in drug transactions. In fact it seems to me that the religious outrage over drug use is used to blunt the publics anger over the church's representatives predilection to abusing those under its care.

And don't even bother with the nonsense about stolen VCR's, or muggings. We have laws against that already.

The only thing I agree with in this article is the fact that the goal of a drugs strategy should be to save lives. We can certainly do more.

Decriminalising or legalising illicit drugs is not going to achieve that goal. It will only increase the number of users like any other legal drug such as alcohol and smoking. If you think the hospital system is overburdened now this will be the breaking point.

For the first time I am actually in agreement with runner. :)

You only have to work or talk to people in the mental health system to become aware of the high number of drug-induced schizophrenics and even young people who have developed a form of early onset dementia.

I would rather a system where drug addicts convicted of criminal offences were subject to a different form of incarceration. This might include rehabilitation, education and skills training and after-prison support to give them the best possible chance of making a new life. The worst thing a drug-addict can do is go back to whatever it was they were doing before and by becoming involved in the peer group of drug-culture. They need to find within themselves the courage and the skills to move on.

I meant to add that the title 'The failed war on drugs' is a misnomer.

How do we know we have failed in the drugs war? How can you quantify this sort of failure when there is nothing to compare it with? How certain is the author that any other system would have done better? Have we also failed in the break and enter war, the paedophile war and the street racing war?

These are all problems for law enforcement but we don't legalise something because it has become too hard, we look for better strategies to combat it.

Pelican,

On the contrary, a system of licensed, controlled availability would save lives. Most heroin overdoses are due to unkown concentration of the illegal product or poly-drug use, often occurring because users add cheap pharmaceuticals to their dose, with unpredictable results.

Household surveys show that controlled availability would not cause many more people to use drugs. After all, if heroin were legally (and unromantically) available on prescription, would you start sticking a needle in your arm? I thought not.

And yes, I do talk to people involved in mental health and they know that most of their clients already had severe problems and traumas before they started on drugs. The biased reports you read claim only a LINK between drugs and mental illness and do not show causality. In fact the incidence of psychosis has not increased since the 1960s while cannabis use has rocketed.

Nevertheless, drugs do have their dangers and harms. The point is they could be managed better if it was an above-ground activity, and also reduced through regulation (like not for sale to under 18s), quality control, better education and perhaps rationing.

The more they scream about the harms of drugs, the better the case against prohibition – because all these harms are happening under that failed system (just like they did under alcohol prohibition in the US). For a good recent example of a balanced assessment of the dangers of cannabis, see this five-page pdf:

http://www.encod.org/info/IMG/pdf/Brink_Decriminalization_Cannabis_2008.pdf

Paul.L

If you had a 15 year old who overdosed you would certainly see yourself as a victim of the drug pushers. I for one have not heard the churches push anything on this topic so I am not sure what you are on about here. In actual fact you would probably find some church groups agree entirely with the author while others would not. So your comments seem a bit twisted.

There was never any intention to demean victims of pedophilia whether by clergy or doctors. I thought that the point was clear that by reducing penalties you send out a message that it is not that important. The same could be said of the drug pushers. Slap them over the risk and they see little wrong with their crime.

runner knows very well that a search of Mr. Sabhlok's article yields no allusion to specifics of future policy, but is remarkably constrained - given the reality of prohibitions failings - in advancing that "we need a more rational drug policy".

To place runners allusion to sexual deviance in perspective, the word "legalisation" is not in the original piece. runner is using the false claim we have "a pervert industry" and deliberately confuses increased protection of witnesses, improved detection, honest community education, and less threat of discrimination when seeking treatment with what is a greater level of exposure, reporting, public outcry, conviction, and resultant legislative changes.

To falsely link human rights of users to abuse vulnerable children, in an attempt to promote disgust toward liberal drug policy in the Australian community, is despicable. If the prohibitionist argument need now rely upon such demonstrably malignant tactics, Mr. Sabhlok's only fault may to be guilty of understatement.

Sukrit has echoed the international resolutions of the Vienna Committee on Narcotic Drugs. This "Beyond 2008" forum is easily accessible as are submissions and resolutions. UN Human Rights changes, forbidding criticism of abuses if deemed Sharia, place further responsibility of democratic nations living off the fat of multiculturalism. The Nth. African/Middle East submission looks more favourably upon harm reduction measures than does Australia's critics of the Beyond 2008 resolutions.

the constant agitating for perpetuating of drug war ideology in the West can now be seen as naught but self sabotage. That this superstitious guesswork continues at a time when geopolitical challenges demand a critical eye and dismissal of political correctness, is unacceptable.

The claim that evidence backed arguments that highlight the need for open, honest discourse are in effect "for legalisation" of crimes as revolting as child abuse tells us much more of the religious fundamentalist/conservative mind than of the point in question.

As for cannabis I fear the need for skepticism renders such a grandiose and clearly false claim, simply bizarre.

runner knows very well that a search of Mr. Sabhlok's article yields no allusion to specifics of future policy, but is remarkably constrained - given the reality of prohibitions failings - in advancing that "we need a more rational drug policy".

To place runners allusion to sexual deviance in perspective, the word "legalisation" is not in Sukrit's piece. runner is using the false claim we have "a pervert industry" and deliberately confuses increased protection of witnesses, improved detection, community education, and less threat of discrimination when seeking treatment with what is a greater level of exposure, reporting, public outcry, conviction, resultant legislative changes.

To falsely link human rights of users to abuse of vulnerable children, in an attempt to promote disgust toward liberal drug policy in the minds of Australians, is despicable. If the prohibitionist argument need now rely upon such demonstrably malignant tactics, Mr. Sabhlok's only fault may to be guilty of understatement.

Sukrit has echoed the international resolutions of the Vienna Committee on Narcotic Drugs. This "Beyond 2008" forum is easily accessible as are submissions and resolutions. Recent UN Human Rights changes, relating to abuses and Sharia Law, place further responsibility of democratic nations living off the fat of multiculturalism.

The Nth. African/Middle East submission looks more favourably upon harm reduction measures than does Australia's religious backed critics of the Beyond 2008 resolutions to focus of health and rights. It's a neat trick when Christian fundamentalism not Islamic fundamentalism, is our "enemy".

the constant agitating for perpetuating of drug war ideology in the West is naught but self sabotage. That this superstitious guesswork continues at a time when geopolitical challenges demand a critical eye and brutally realistic responses to global health challenges, is bizarre.

The claim that evidence backed arguments that highlight the need for open, honest discourse are in effect "for legalisation" of crimes as revolting as child abuse tells us much more of the religious fundamentalist/conservative mind than of the point in question.

As for cannabis I fear the need for skepticism renders such a grandiose and clearly false claim, simply bizarre.

http://firesnake.org/index.php?post_id=362796

Good afternoon to you all...

The war on drugs could and should be won. As a retired copper of many years (part of which was involved in drug investigation) there are a couple of 'log jams' that continually thwart, impede, and inhibit the successful interdiction of drug proliferation in Australia -

BRIEFLY:

(a) Allow police to use and exercise ALL their powers;

(b) Ensure that the judiciary dispense meaningful and realistic sentences upon those who are found guilty;

(c) Turn Gaol B A C K into gaol with strict adherence to non-parole periods; and

That ALL political parties embrace and espouse a total 'zero tolerence' policy to all pushers and traffickers on a bi-partisan basis.

Adopt all of the above and we may, I repeat may, start to turn around our losing war on drugs.

Didn't we have this very discussion just a few weeks back?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2042

I really couldn't be bothered going over the same tired ground, but it is good to see Australia's own "failed war on drugs" located in a global context. Rationality may prevail some day - but I can't see it happening soon.

runner: << As someone who has spent a fair bit of time with people suffering from Schizophrenia... >>

Why am I not surprised?

On the other hand, it's nice to be able to agree with Paul.L for a change.

Drugs could be managed better, by not taking them at all.
Some how the young are not being educated about the dangers of drug use. Or they are being instructed in a way, that is not believed.
So there is another way in the war on drugs.

O Sung Wu,

How is it that policing by itself can be effective when drug misuse was a problem even for the stalinist regimes who had TOTAL power over their citizens.

How do you think more punishment will deter people when huge numbers of people risk the death penalty every day to carry drugs in and out of South East Asia?

The more we criminalise drugs the further into the general community you push drug dealers. Vast numbers of people who have never, and most likely will never break any laws become criminalised by this mindless approach. When such a large proportion of the community is involved in taking drugs recreationally, criminalising their behaviour is pointless and only serves to provide funding for organised crime and more police time devoted to what should be an issue of personal choice.

Runner,

If you had ever met any 15 year old drug users you WOULD know that by and large they have bought their drugs from their friends. The idea that shady drug dealers are out there waiting for children so they can HOOK them is simply NOT the way things are.

I actually have a 15 year old and we've had this discussion about drugs and the damage they can do, and I will be holding HER fully responsible for any drug taking (although I'm hoping we never have to worry about that) including any overdoses. You who is supposedly Christian seem to have entirely dismissed personal responsibility.

Besides that, the damage from drugs is SO TINY in comparison with the damage that abuse of alcohol does to kids, it doesn't even bear thinking about. You are just knee jerk reacting to the situation without giving it any thought. Thousands of times more damage is done to children by alcohol, yet the majority of funding and policing is aimed at drugs for this exact reason.

Tell me, are you also going to send alcohol manufacturers and retailers to prison because 15 year olds get drunk and fall off balconies or walk in front of cars or simply overdose?

'evening to you PAUL L...

Of course 'a policing option' is not the answer alone. However, I do not agree that there would be a significent increase of illicit drug use if the dealers; pushers; and traffickers were substantially taken out of the equation.

Personally, I'm of the view that users are more the victim rather than a criminal. Further, it's true that some users do resort to pushing, in order to simply pay for their own habit and not just to earn money, per se.

If there was a way to literally truncate the availabilty of illicit drugs maybe that could be of assistance too ? Though, it would also create more crime against property and the person. Because of the much higher costs associated with the substantially curtailed availability ?

At the risk of furnishing a rather simplistic and facile solution, I still hold the view that law enforcement assets should be specifically directed towards the pushers; traffickers; and importers; et al. In fact any organisation or individual who has a primary business that makes huge money essentially from providing illicit drugs.

A medical/social intervention should be directed to the user.

Same old “failure because (someone’s polemic demand of the outcome) is not a perfect result”

Regarding failure, that could only be compared if we had the result to what happens when different strategies are deployed

Pelican I would agree with your post (you should have posted on the recent “Side Effects of Drug Policing”, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2042 )

The issue of legalization and your observation to an increase in usage I totally agree with,

Regarding “This might include rehabilitation, education and skills training and after-prison support to give them the best possible chance of making a new life.”

This happens already (in Victoria at least), although there will always be a debate to how much money should we be prepared to flush down the drain to save any incorrigible and habitual offender.

Regarding MichaelG “often occurring because users add cheap pharmaceuticals to their dose, with unpredictable results.”
And they might continue to employ that practice with “government issue” narcotics too.

“Household surveys show that controlled availability would not cause many more people to use drugs.”

That is not the experience with what happened in China at the end of the 19th century

Nor has it been the experience (in what some might say is another addictive process) the activity of casino gambling and poker machines, since they were legalized in Victoria a decade (or so) a go.

Nor the increase in public intoxication and violence since Victorian licensing laws and late night opening were relaxed.

I further fully endorse o sung wu’s observations. Zero tolerance

PaulL the victims of drug use

Include

the people whose possessions have been stolen by junkies to fund their habit,

the families of junkies who died.

Those people who are in accident emergency queues because someone high on Meth amphetamine are smashing into the doctors and their equipment which is being used to bring the idiot down

or even the time and effort spent on someone O/D on ecstasy, utilizing scarce medical resources.

The recipients of drug induced violence. Including police and Ambos as well as the general public.

Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.

Col,

You say >> “victims of drug use include, the people whose possessions have been stolen by junkies to fund their habit,

There is a law against stealing, maybe you’ve heard of it? The people who lose their possessions are victims of theft. By the way, drug addicts generally don’t steal for fun, or to get rich, so if drugs were legal you would see a massive drop in that type of criminality.

You say >> “or even the time and effort spent on someone O/D on ecstasy, utilizing scarce medical resources”

I agree to a certain extent except to say that there is absolutely no reason to NOT include ANYONE who is in hospital because of their own behaviour. So attempted suicides, xtreme sports enthusiasts, risk takers, smokers, over eaters etc. Can you tell me why any of these people who cause their own injuries should be treated differently?

Also do you know how many people overdose on ecstasy? The numbers are tiny.

“Ecstasy related deaths are rare compared with the likely frequency of its use. If you compare it to heroin, for example, 2% of the Australian population has tried heroin and there were six hundred deaths in 1997. 5% percent of the population have tried ecstasy and there were four deaths in 1997 – from all stimulant deaths (not just ecstasy). “http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/dillon.htm

You say >> The recipients of drug induced violence

Again there is a law against violence, Col. And the recipients of drug induced violence pale into absolute insignificance when they held up against the victims of alcohol induced violence. Yet I’ll bet you aren’t a supporter of banning alcohol. This whole idea that alcohol is not a drug just does not bear out. It clearly is, yet we make this artificial distinction. We’re quite happy to live with the fallout from over drinking, yet a handful of drug related violence cases turn some people apoplectic.

TBC

To Col Rouge:

Quote: " Regarding MichaelG "users add cheap pharmaceuticals to their dose, with unpredictable results.”
And they might continue to employ that practice with “government issue” narcotics too." Unquote.

Why would they, Col, when heroin is the most desirable drug (and would be legal) and pharmaceuticals are a poor substitute (and would be illegal)? A junkie outside my front door, offered prescription pills and unaware that I could hear, said: " That crap shouldn't even be on the market. I'd only use it if I was hangin' like a dog".

Quote: “Controlled availability would not cause many more people to use drugs.”

That is not the experience with what happened in China at the end of the 19th century" Unquote

That's not a valid comparison. Opium was imported in huge quantities from India by the Brits for profit. Its use was not regulated, medically supervised or rationed, as would be desirable in our current environment.

Quote: "Nor has it been the experience (in what some might say is another addictive process) the activity of casino gambling and poker machines, since they were legalized in Victoria" Unquote

Again no comparison, Col. See above. Also, it's a lot less risky and less difficult to drop a coin in a pokie than shooting up. Like I said, if heroin was legal, would you stick a needle in your arm? No? But I'll bet you've used a pokie. Different animals, Col.

Re 'zero tolerance' : if they can't keep drugs out of jails, how can they do it across whole countries? Have you any idea how much it would cost? How much tax you would pay? How many innocent people would be shot in the street, like the 1,400 or so that Thaksin murdered in Thailand when they tried it? It is simply not worth it, Col.

And you don't seem to understand that the profit available from illegal drugs corrupts the very people who enforce prohibition. Just like under alcohol prohibition in the US. And that IS a valid comparison.

Can't agree more with this article. Thr "War on ......Drugs" is nothing but propaganda. There are thousands of people who use these "dangerous" drugs, such as Helen Mirren an extremely successful role model who did at one time. The media, politicians and police forces always pretend that these thousands of people never exist. Helen Mirren is an extremely successful person who took cocaine on a regular basis. The publicity about drugs is nothing but fearmongering to control what people consume (that's why governments are always trying to eliminate smoking and alcohol). The drug war is also used to oppress the consumption of cultural and traditional medicines. The amount of money spent chasing traders all over the planet in a kind of neverending circus is also immoral. Police do not want the drug war to end because it creates so much crime and legitimacy for them, just like the "War on Terror" is now another infinite war where normal people like Haneef are pursued for show even though it cost taxpayers millions of dollars...they just wanted to throw it away on their publicity campaign.. which the public "need to open their wallets and fund forever". This is why the police will usually not speak out against it in any official capacity...they will be fired or silenced for doing so.

You say >> “the families of junkies who died”

I see, but sky divers, over eaters, excessive drinkers, others who treat their body and their health badly, why don't we outlaw those things to protect families as well? Aren't their families also victims of something by your definition?

My brother was once a drug addict and he fell through a window while he was high, fell two stories, landed on his head and was in a coma for two weeks. He’s since recovered from both that injury and drugs, but I’ve always held him responsible for his actions. This idea that you can blame drugs actually deprives us and the drug user of the personal responsibility factor. It means drug addicts can hide behind this idea that it’s the drugs which are the problem, and not them taking them. It means we can let go of our responsibilities to raise our children correctly and make them aware of the consequences of their choices.

Drugs by prescription was trialed in Britain in the Merseyside area. The idea was to prescribe injectable opiates and set up syringe replacement schemes, again with the help and support of the police force. These projects certainly yielded results: a very low rate of AIDS infection among the intravenous drug injectors and a decrease in petty crime.

This program showed that it could turn what were once pretty much useless burdens on society into productive members of the public. Once the addicts no longer needed to spend their time searching for money to support their habit, and combined with the stability of receiving the same dose every day, many of the partcipants of the study were able to return to work or do other far more useful things with their lives. http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/peddr0021.ht

As CJ said this issue has been done to death on OLO previously and pretty much all the arguments for and against are on the thread that Col refers.

Col I did contribute to that thread and I think (from memory) we were in the minority. But it is nice to see CJ and PaulL in agreement for a change. :)

Still thinking outside the box, "this is" another pointless debate on whats right or wrong with the human population. The more laws we make, the more people will find a way to object and run away from their responsibilities.

I smell the fear in all your posts! We are all running out of time! You choose! faith or reality, its your decision.

People are under pressure! What do you thing they will do! That's right! find away too escape from.

This century is what the future has already fore-casted, and the circle is completed.

Conclusion!

God help us all!

I guess the ten rats in a box has not helped in any-way.

I guess I stand alone.:) if man was to become a "collective", what could we be?
I see a greater subject of the one person that rules the world. could this might be too much for the world to complete?

I speak in the simplex words that all can benefit from a world as we see it! and behold! we are now in the process of changeability!

Can we adapted? This is yet to see.

Can the bee hive correlate into today's world?

Just a thought.

EVO

Seditious! LOL. more of a guess! Overpopulation! I wonder if this is the problem we face.

Let the death rate over-ride the birth rate on a global scale. As population decreases over a fifty year period, all that we see, will just disappear, one year at a time. Profit maker's are the only casualties, and if wind back, ( for a hundred years ) the world can all start again.
And the great thing about this is, no-one will notice the difference.

Things will Cruise along, and the only thing you will notice is, the world will be come smarter and all that plague us, will just die out!

Welcome to evolution.

EVO